Sitting of 15 April 1991

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 Sir John Stradling Thomas, Knight, Member for Monmouth, 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.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Family Benefits
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual spending on family credit; and what was the spending on family income supplement in 1979.
    Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual spending on family credit; and what was spending on family income supplement in 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we estimate that in the financial year just ended expenditure on family credit will have been £484
    2
    million. That is 20 times in cash terms, or eight times in real terms, the expenditure in 1978–79 on family income supplement of £24 million.
    Dr. Twinn: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's reply, which shows the real increase in spending. I know that he will share the concern of the House about those who are not taking up benefit for which they qualify and I congratulate him on the advertising campaign. How successful has it been so far?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about our campaign. In the television campaign we have drawn attention to the message in the front of the child benefit book which shows what people could receive in the form of assistance through family credit. That is a cost-effective way of reaching 6·7 million families. The success can be judged from the fact that after five weeks of the campaign there has been a 17 per cent. increase in the number of inquiries about family credit over the figure for the five weeks before the campaign started.
    Mr. Alison: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the predecessor of family credit, the family income supplement scheme, was started by the then Sir Keith Joseph in the early 1970s, the Labour Opposition promised to abolish it? Against that abolitionist background, does he recognise that the Labour party has not the slightest hope of matching, let alone improving, the quality and calibre of family credit as it operates today?
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend, in his perceptive way, has put his finger on a series of exchanges in the recent Budget debate, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew the attention of Opposition Members to the fact that the Opposition's policy on the uprating of child benefit meant that people on family credit would receive no additional payments—unlike under our much more generous approach to the problem.
    Mr. Frank Field: How much would the increase in family credit have been had the Government increased child benefit during their 11 years in office in line with prices?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman seeks to highlight a most important point: the fact that people on family credit will, of course, receive the full value of the uprating of child benefit in April.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister conduct an urgent review of staffing levels for handling family credit in Blackpool? He will know that, like many other hon. Members, I am in regular correspondence with his Department about the massive delays encountered by people trying to secure family credit, not least by those in the self-employed category, in the evaluation of whose applications more attention to detail is involved.
    Mr. Jack: We in the Social Security Department do not have to wait to be prompted on these matters by questions in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman will find that the target met in March—17 days to deal with family credit applications—exceeded by one day the target that was set. He will also know, if he had time to read the newspapers during the recess, that the Benefits Agency was launched last week, with a commitment to a high quality of public service. I am sure that any remaining problems relating to family credit will be one of Mr. Michael Bichard's first priorities.

    Sick and Disabled People
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent figure for the increase in spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people since 1979.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have increased spending on long-term sick and disabled people by £5·6 billion in real terms over the last 12 years, to over £10 billion a year.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most encouraging aspects about his reply was not just its proof that the Government have done far more for the long-term sick and disabled than the Labour Government ever did, or than the Opposition seem to be planning to do, but that the Government are boosting the morale of those people by making it more possible for them to earn their living and go out into the world?
    Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have spent an extra £470 million in real terms per annum compared with £310 million in real terms during the period when Labour was in office. That is ahead of the full implementation of our proposals in "The Way Ahead" which will aid another 850,000 people at a cost of an extra £300 million in 1993–94.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: How much of that money was obtained from the savings that the Government achieved as a result of the shameful decision announced with the minimum of publicity by a junior Minister in another place not to implement the remaining sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986? That decision has shocked organisations of and for disabled people. Since the Secretary of State had much to do with the drafting of those sections, will he assure him that that anger will not go away?
    Mr. Scott: The 1986 Act was passed in circumstances very different from those that exist today or are in prospect when the main responsibility for care in the community,
    4
    the representation of disabled people and the meeting of their needs passes to local authorities and is properly within their remit.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important aspects is to ensure that disabled people and others get the benefits to which they are entitled? Can he give the number of people who have taken up mobility and attendance allowance in recent years?
    Mr. Scott: Those figures have increased dramatically, but we are still not satisfied with the arrangements for paying disabled people the benefits to which they are entitled. I recently announced that from June the benefits inquiry line, which we have been piloting in Reading in recent months, will be introduced nationally. Those who think that they are entitled to a benefit will be able to telephone a trained operator and receive a personal letter advising them of their entitlements. Many of them will be able to get a completed application form for their signature.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that the increased spending about which he spoke relates, almost entirely, not to higher benefits but to new recipients of benefits that were introduced by this Government's predecessors? Will he confirm that since 1979 average earnings have gone up by more than 20 per cent., but disability benefits by only 1 per cent? Is not that why huge numbers of disabled people complained so bitterly to the Prime Minister at his recent meeting with their organisations? Does he intend to accept the Lords amendment to his Disability Living Allowance and Working Allowance Bill on the future of the independent living fund?
    Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. First, the extra resources have been found and, for example, our commitment for 1992 to introduce the disability working allowance from the starting date of the legislation compares favourably with the slow, gradual and uncertain introduction of the mobility allowance by the previous Labour Government. Since we came to office we have found the extra resources to deal with the increased take-up of benefits right across the board. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the future of the independent living fund. We have announced extra resources for that and the long-term future will have to take account of the duties that will flow to local authorities after 1993.

    Pensioners (Savings)
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners retiring (a) in 1979 and (b) in 1987 had incomes from savings; and what was the real average level of savings on each of those two dates.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, in 1987, 75 per cent. of recently retired pensioners had income from savings compared with only 65 per cent. in 1979. The average real level of savings for this group was about four times as high in 1987 as it had been in 1979.
    Mr. Stern: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that announcement, which confirms the very real increase in the standard of living of pensioners over the past decade. Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the greatest danger to the record figures that she announced would be a resurgence of double-figure inflation of the type experienced under the last Labour Government? Does she further agree that the greatest threat of such inflation comes from the grandiose spending plans of the Labour party?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and one need only look at the record of the last Labour Government to see how right he is. During their time in office, pensioners' average income from savings fell by 16 per cent., which was the equivalent of about 3·4 per cent. each year. By comparison, under this Government, pensioners' average income from savings has increased by 130 per cent.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the Government are claiming credit for those figures, will they also take responsibility for blighting the lives of many of the pensioners in my constituency who have been put out of work in the past 10 years because of the previous Government-created recession and have found themselves, at the age of 55 or 56, unable to get other jobs and having to retire on basic benefits with no savings at all? When will the Government compensate people who were asked to sacrifice their jobs for the prosperity of the country?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is odd that the hon. Gentleman castigates the Government for people retiring on basic state pensions, because the number now retiring with occupational pensions has risen to 77 per cent. in real terms. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is on weak ground. Pensioners' incomes have increased steadily under this Government, from benefits, occupational pensions and savings. The total increase in income is 31 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should look to the record of the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that the lesson to be learnt from the admirable figures that she described to the House, in terms of savings and occupational pensions, is that any extra resources that can be channelled to pensioners should not be dissipated across all pensioners but targeted to those reliant only on state pensions and those most clearly in need of extra income?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been targeting help in that fashion. Recently, we announced increases to the value of £200 million in a full year, devoted specifically to less well-off pensioners. From April 1991, a further £80 million has been devoted to exactly that category. My hon. Friend is right that we can do more for poorer pensioners if we specifically target them.
    Mr. Allen: The Minister will be aware that, because of the increase in pensions paid for the first time last week, married couples under the age of 75 now receive lop more than the income support limit. That means that they will be unable to claim benefits such as free dental inspections, free eye tests, European Community food mountain subsidies which allow pensioners free meat and so on—
    Mr. Dickens: The gravy train.
    Mr. Allen: —access to the social fund and cold weather payments. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who calls that the gravy train, should be ashamed of himself. Did the Government realise that that 10p rise over the income support level would have such an effect? If not, what will they do to help those people?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as a result of that rise in the basic retirement pension for the category of people whom he mentions, the retirement pension has now risen above the level of income support, so they now receive additional resources each week. He should also be aware that such people are still eligible for national health service benefits, as they are for housing and community charge benefits. Their total income should, therefore, not be eroded.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the impact of recent technological developments upon the disabled.
    Mr. Scott: Recent. current and future technological developments are making and will continue to make an increasing impact on the lives of disabled people. They will enable many disabled people to live independently and to have opportunities for education, employment and leisure. They will also play an important part in the detection, prevention and amelioration of disabling conditions.
    Mr. Summerson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, wherever possible, money is made available by his Department to ensure that disabled people who cannot afford that new technology are enabled to afford its benefits?
    Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend. We want those developments to be made available on as wide a scale as possible. Clearly, priorities will have to be made about the development and availability of new technology. But we are moving in the right direction and in the next 10 years technology will make a greater impact than anything else on the lives of disabled people.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend recall his visit three years ago to the disabled living service centre in Manchester, which has a unique display of devices to help the disabled? Does he recognise the national importance of that centre, which is funded almost entirely by charity?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly recognise that and there are a number of other centres around the country that also play an important part in enabling disabled people to see what is available to them. I am concerned that we should exploit information technology to the greatest extent possible so that social services departments, voluntary agencies and disabled people can find out, by using the telephone or other instruments of information technology, what is available to them.

    Claimants
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures the Government are implementing to improve their level of service to social security claimants.
    Mr. Lester: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures the Government are implementing to improve their level of service to social security claimants.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The creation of the Benefits Agency under the "next steps" arrangements is an important development which will enhance and improve the service given to social security claimants. It will be able to build on other measures already being introduced, including, in particular, the extensive use of information technology.
    Mr. Sims: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. The sheer size of the social security organisation and the number of beneficiaries make it inevitable that errors will occasionally occur. What is annoying for our constituents is that, when something goes wrong, it takes so long to be put right—phone calls receive no response, letters go unanswered and papers go astray —and constituents often turn to their Members of Parliament to get a relatively simple matter put straight. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that his proposals for the agencies will speed up the methods of dealing with the occasional mistakes that are bound to occur?
    Mr. Newton: Like any other Member of Parliament, I am familiar with the sort of criticism made by my hon. Friend. I well recognise that there has been substantial scope for improvement. If my hon. Friend looks at what has happened to, for example, income support clearance times and the speed of reassessment, when required, he will find that there has already been substantial improvement. However, there is still scope for more and I have no doubt that the emphasis that the Benefits Agency already puts on service to the public will contribute to the further improvement that my hon. Friend and I both want.
    Mr. Lester: It is very interesting that, following the Moodie report, my right hon. Friend has moved to the policy of having a Benefits Agency. I welcome his non-complacent attitude and awareness that matters can always continue to improve. Is he satisfied that the interface between the Benefits Agency and the Department of Employment, particularly when dealing with people who move from Department of Employment benefit to income support, is first class, because nobody wants to make it more difficult for people who are currently unemployed or are becoming long-term unemployed?
    Mr. Newton: I should not wish to appear complacent about that aspect of the social security system, any more than any other. I am sure that there is scope in that area for further improvement. I am confident that the combination of the Employment Service Agency and the Benefits Agency will produce further improvement.
    Mr. Grocott: Cannot the Secretary of State understand the considerable scepticism that exists about any of his planned changes since one consequence of the changes is the diminution of his accountability to the House and the accountability of him and his Ministers to individual Members of Parliament? Is not it the habit of Ministers that when they have anything good to say, they much prefer to say it to the House? Therefore, it occurs to many of us that the reason why the Secretary of State puts himself behind the front line is that he is not too proud of the changes.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is unduly cynical, even by the standards of the House. The accountability, to the House and to Parliament as a whole, of the Secretary of State for Social Security for the social security system is entirely unchanged. In my view, it will be more effective, because it will operate on the basis of clearly set targets and the delegation of responsibility, in terms that make it much easier to judge whether those targets are being met.
    Mr. Meacher: As good service is about providing adequate benefits and not less benefit more quickly, is not the Secretary of State ashamed of the EC report of a week ago which finds that while the number of poor people elsewhere in the EC remained broadly stable through the 1980s, in Britain the number of poor households has increased by a third? When will he apologise to the House for the Government having caused that by breaking the pensioner link with earnings, by failing repeatedly to uprate child benefit, by forcing families into poverty as a result of the social fund, by huge cuts in housing benefit and by making the poorest of all pay the poll tax? Is not all the razzamatazz about agency status merely a cover-up for the greatest increase in poverty and inequality since the war?
    Mr. Newton: Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not studied with great care the statistics to which he refers. He well knows that average incomes were used as the benchmark for them, which means that at a time when average incomes have been rising quickly there is an apparent increase in the number of those in poverty measured on that basis. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is sensible to rest an analysis of that sort on the basis of figures that appear to produce an increase in poverty when average incomes rise quickly, he should do more homework.
    Mr. Meacher: It is an EC report.
    Mr. Newton: Of course it is an EC report, but that does not necessarily make it sensible. I am sure that the information is good, but the analysis is wrong, as is the use which the hon. Gentleman made of it.
    I take up the point which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made in another context last week, which revealed again the absurdity of the way in which the figures are used. It happens that 50 per cent. of average incomes was used as the benchmark. Taking Europe as a whole, that produced the result that 50 million people were poor. Had 40 per cent. been used as the benchmark—there was no specially good reason for taking 50 rather than 40 per cent.—the result would have been halved to 26 million. The figures are worth only as much as the interpretation placed on them and the interpretation is ridiculous.
    One last point—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State answered the supplementary questions, not questions that have not been asked.
    Mr. Newton rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Very briefly.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked about half a dozen questions. As he put

    9
    forward a proposal to increase child benefit that would have done nothing for the poorest families in the country, I wonder how he has the nerve to raise these matters.

    Computerisation
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the level of savings in costs and time brought about by computerisation within his Department.
    Miss Widdecombe: The Department's operational strategy—the biggest and most ambitious computerisation programme in Europe—is proceeding as planned and should be fully implemented in July. Most local offices have already gone live and are providing a quicker, more accurate service. For example, the processing time for income support claims has reduced from 6·2 days to five days and for retirement pensions from 28·5 days to 20·3 days.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend tell my constituents how they have benefited from the computerisation process by telling the House the degree to which the accuracy of income support claims has been improved since computerisation took place?
    Miss Widdecombe: Swindon is already benefiting from the pension system, which is on line. It will shortly be benefiting also from the income support system. After those systems have been in place for some time, my hon. Friend will notice, as has been noticed in other constituencies, that there is a marked increase in speed and accuracy in responding to claims. My hon. Friend will be aware of the business plan recently published by the Benefits Agency and of the most impressive target for accuracy and speed contained therein.
    Mrs. Fyfe: How can the Minister say that when we all have constituents who have waited weeks and even months after claiming benefits, only to receive them in the few weeks before the financial year ended, when officers were reconsidering their budgets? Would it not be more sensible to put the money into people's hands when they need it, not weeks and months later?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady is describing a system that most of those who are already computerised and have been for some time would not recognise. Among the local offices that I have visited have been those which are now turning round pension claims in days rather than, as previously, in weeks. It is true, in the immediate aftermath of new systems being introduced, there is sometimes some backlog and delay. When that has been cleared, the uniform experience thereafter is greater speed in delivery of benefits.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made in setting up the Child Support Agency.
    Mr. Jack: I am glad to report to the House that the key objectives of site selection for the agency's centres are developing well. The appropriate information technology systems are being evaluated and job design for them is also
    10
    progressing well. We are confident that the agency will be able to meet its operational requirements by early 1993, as set out in the White Paper "Children Come First".
    Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend outline some of the local employment created as a result of this welcome measure? Will any local employment be created in Warrington?
    Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the assiduousness and persuasiveness with which he wrote on behalf of his constituents to those given the responsibility for site selection. We hope to establish up to six regional centres for the Child Support Agency. I assure my hon. Friend that, although at this stage I cannot reveal precisely the locations of the centres, we have taken carefully into account the facts that he put before the House.
    Each of the regional centres will employ up to 500 people. In total, about 5,000 people will be employed by the Child Support Agency—an increase of some 3,500 overall in the number presently involved in liable relative work in the Department.
    Mr. Meacher: Now that a vote in another place means that the Secretary of State will not be given the proposed punitive power to remove the right to income support from a lone parent who declines, often for good reason, to name the father, will the Minister give a commitment that the Government will use the carrot and not the stick? Will they encourage lone parents to name the father by allowing them to keep a proportion of the maintenance thus obtained? Will the Minister at least give a commitment that he will not reintroduce any punitive measure that forces unemployed fathers below the level of subsistence?
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that particular question. I draw to his attention the fact that clause 5 of the Child Support Bill remains in place as a result of the discussions in another place. As he will know, that clause contains a requirement that the information be made available to child support offices during their inquiries relating to seeking maintenance. We listened carefully to the arguments on clause 22, which deals with this matter. That consideration continues. Until that operation is concluded, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer to his question.

    Disabled People (Allowances)
    Mr. Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people will benefit from the introduction of (a) the disability living allowance and (b) the disability working allowance.
    Mr. Scott: We estimate that nearly 300,000 people will benefit from the introduction of disability living allowance and about 50,000 will be receiving disability working allowance at any one time.
    Mr. Lawrence: Are not these considerable, substantial and constructive improvements in the conditions of disabled people in Britain? Is not there a world of difference between Labour promises, which are not even priority pledges and which socialist management of the economy could never deliver any more than it did the last time that the Labour party was in power, and actual Conservative deeds?
    Mr. Scott: I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend recognises both the progress that we seek to make and the failure of the Opposition. There was previously a partial incapacity benefit. For the first time, we are introducing a benefit that will encourage those who are able and want to work, to do so. That is a great step in the right direction. I am also pleased that, in the vast majority of cases, we have moved away from medical assessment to self-assessment, as that is a better way to handle these matters.
    Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister express his disgust at the fact that one group of disabled—haemophiliacs suffering from AIDS—has not yet received a penny from the Government? Will he assure the House now that anyone who applies to the Macfarlane Trust and eventually, through the rhetoric, gets some money, will not be denied any social security benefits such as disability working allowance?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest that haemophiliacs have not received any money from the Government. They have received a great deal of money. There was a lot of misleading comment in the press this weekend and I should like not only to lay that ghost but to refute the suggestion that payments from the haemophiliac trust, the Macfarlane Trust, are not being disregarded for social security benefits. They are and they will continue to be so.

    Child Support Agency
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the Child Support Agency will assist lone parents.
    Mr. Newton: The Child Support Agency will be a purpose-built organisation with a single aim of providing an efficient and effective service for all families for whom child maintenance is an issue. The use of an administrative formula to calculate child maintenance will produce consistent and predictable results, introduce the opportun-ity for regular review and reduce the scope for dispute.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I entirely support the Government's intention to ensure that three quarters of absent parents who presently do not support their children should be made to do so. Has he thought about the fact that what mothers in such cases need is the money in their hands? Having been made an award, they will not necessarily get that money unless the father can be tracked down and made to pay. The award that the Government will have made is a negotiable document for the mother. In the private sector, one could factor such an award—go to a bank or some other organisation and be able to get the money up front. When we discuss the Bill in the House, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing that idea into it?
    Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. The main point that I would make in reply is that one of the groups for whom the use of the agency will be compulsory is lone parents on income support. In those cases, it is difficult to see quite what they would gain from my hon. Friend's proposal, because if maintenance does not come, income support does. The state is providing a guaranteed income.
    Dr. Godman: Will lone parents in receipt of income support, especially mothers bringing up children on their own, receive any assistance by way of advice and representation when they apply for community care grants or crisis loans from their local DSS offices? Are not women in such circumstances often in need of professional advice, especially when challenging decisions taken by adjudica-tion officers?
    Mr. Newton: Perhaps for good and understandable reasons, the hon. Gentleman is taking us rather wide of the subject of the Child Support Agency. I would certainly hope that, in line with much that has happened in recent years, and referring back to the question about the Benefits Agency, there will be a continuing improvement in the advice and assistance that the Department, along with many other organsiations, is able to offer claimants.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters he has received about the uprating of child benefit in recent years.
    Mr. Newton: There were 374 letters to Ministers in 1989 and 164 in 1990.
    Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware how warmly the decision to resume the index-rating of child benefit has been received? Will he accept my congratulations on winning that battle with the Treasury?
    Mr. Newton: That is probably as friendly an exchange as I have had with my hon. Friend in the better part of eight or nine years, mostly as Minister responsible for social security. Perhaps I should congratulate him on being so nice to me.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State be responding to a report, which came out today from the Family Policy Studies Centre, showing that larger families in the United Kingdom benefit least from Government assistance in rearing their children? It would be helpful if he could place the report in the Library.
    Mr. Newton: I shall consider whether to place it in the Library when I have established more about the precise status of the report. It is worth noticing that the only country in Europe where the average family size is not less than two is Eire, so comparisons that rest heavily upon child benefit for larger families apply only to a small minority. What we hear less about is that, for example, if the French regime for child benefit, in which there is no payment for the first child, were in force, 40 per cent. of those who receive child benefit in this country would not get it.
    Mr. Favell: As my right hon. Friend knows, the increase in child benefit will be a help to the poorest families. However, one thing concerns me. The number of illegitimate births to women who have never been married seems to be rising. In Manchester last year, 49 per cent. of all births were illegitimate. Have the Government any plans to educate young women at school about the difficulties that they will face? I do not think that people appreciate the problems of bringing up a child alone.
    Mr. Newton: It is probably best for me to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and

    13
    learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science; I have not yet gone into the workings of the education system. Let me pick up one point, however. My hon. Friend said that the increase in child benefit would help the poorest families. That is true of our child benefit increase, but not of the increase proposed in the shadow Budget by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

    Clients (Facilities)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent in London social security offices on facilities for clients during the latest period for which figures are available.
    Miss Widdecombe: In the financial year 1989–90, £1·5 million was spent on capital refurbishment projects at 13 offices in the London area. Expenditure in 1990–91 is estimated at £5 million at a further 31 offices. A breakdown of expenditure between customer and staff areas is not available from information held centrally.
    Mr. Banks: But a breakdown is precisely what I wanted. I am not arguing about the amount of capital expenditure on London offices; I want to know what is being done to stop supplementary benefit claimants being treated so shabbily in those offices.
    Is the Minister aware that the new office at Stratford was clearly designed for no clients to come in at all? Nothing much has been provided in the way of chairs, and it is impossible for those going there, who may have to wait for hours, to obtain a hot drink. When will the Minister start arranging for such people to be treated like decent human beings rather than like dirt?
    Miss Widdecombe: As he visited the Wood Grange Park office in February, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the unfortunate circumstances that prevail. He will also know that one of the problems has been an increase in the number of Somali refugees who are applying for benefit. I share his concern that conditions in the offices should be adequate: that is why we have spent some £40 million on improving offices throughout Great Britain. Every effort is being made to resolve the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

  THE ARTS

    Arts Venues
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what visits he has made to arts venues in London outside the west end and other nationally funded centres.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): I regularly visit arts venues throughout the country, including the Battersea arts centre, in my hon. Friend's constituency. With permission, I shall arrange for a list of those that I have visited so far this year to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to the arts, there are really two Londons? There is the London of the centres of international and national excellence in and around the west end and the world of the Londoner's arts. As my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out, this includes, among many other excellent venues, the
    14
    Battersea arts centre. Those centres depend for their funding partly on the borough, partly on the Arts Council and partly on the London borough grant scheme.
    Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports in this week's Stage and Television Today, which quotes, among others, the National Campaign for the Arts stating:
    "Vote Labour And Arts Will Suffer"?
    That is because Labour councillors involved in the London borough grant scheme and in the boroughs have withdrawn their support for the arts in London. Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to restore that support, and perhaps consider whether the grant scheme is the best way forward?
    Mr. Renton: I agree that London is a vibrant centre for the arts outside the west end. Some 160 clients in London receive revenue support from the regional arts association, and many of them are not west-end based.
    I also agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the diverse funding for the arts in London. It is extraordinary that the shadow Arts Minister is not with us today, given that virulent criticism in the Stage—
    "Vote Labour And Arts Will Suffer".
    The paper is not normally a supporter of the Conservative party. I can only suppose that, after all those months of preaching Labour support for the arts, the shadow Arts Minister has taken fright today—that he has not dared to face the music, and has gone off to read "The Wreck of the Hesperus" by himself.
    Dr. Marek: The Minister is very unfair. The shadow Minister for the Arts has been held up. A note of apology will no doubt come to the Minister in due course. He wanted to be here, but he could not get here in time. I hope the Minister will accept that explanation.
    Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that. No apology had reached me. If something like that which appeared last week in the Stage had been written about me, I do not know whether I should have turned up today.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: When the Minister visits arts venues, either inside or outside London, will he please press, especially on venue managers, the needs of the disabled? Does he know that the only dignified night out that a disabled person can have at an arts venue is to sit at home in front of the television set?
    Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. I thank her and congratulate her on all the work that she has done by means of the ADAPT programme to help to improve access for the disabled and the deaf to arts venues. Arts companies throughout the country are becoming more and more aware of the issue. When I recently visited the new West Yorkshire playhouse in Leeds I was delighted to see how far it had gone towards making access to both theatres available to the disabled. That trend ought to be continued.
    Following is the information:

    Arts venues visited by the Minister for the Arts since January 1991 (outside the west end)

    Date

    6 January

    Sadler's Wells Theatre

    14 January

    Tate Gallery

    17 January

    Science Museum

    23 January

    Queen Elizabeth Hall

    24 January

    Barbican

    Arts (London)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will earmark additional revenues for funding the arts in London.
    Mr. Renton: No, Sir, as London is already well funded by the Arts Council. Even omitting the national companies, London is the best funded region at £2·75 per head of population.
    Mr. Banks: The Minister is being remarkably complacent. in view of the question he was asked by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). Is he aware of the chaotic situation that the London borough grant scheme is in? That scheme was set up to fund voluntary bodies after the destruction of the Greater London council by the Conservative Government, but it has been hindered by Conservative councillors who are looking for cuts. If that happens, arts in all the London boroughs will be decimated. What is the Minister doing about the London borough grant scheme? What consultations has he had with the Department of the Environment, where the responsibility rests? If he does not do something, he will have an appalling mess on his hands. Is he prepared to wash his hands, just like Pontius Pilate?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's analysis is wrong. There is a Labour-Liberal majority on the London borough grant scheme. Labour councillors are pushing their arts company clients off the edge of the table, one after the other, in order to spend the money available on projects that they think have more popular political support. That was at the heart of the criticism last week in the Stage. That is why so many people in London are totally losing faith with Labour councillors. The shadow Minister for the Arts has preached, but he cannot deliver Labour councillors.
    Mr. Jessell: As London is highly successful as the arts capital of the world, as millions of people come here to see our arts and heritage, as their spending generates a huge amount of income and employment, and, therefore, tax returns to the Government, and as a strong centre helps the edges, ought not we to continue to build on our strength?
    Mr. Renton: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. As he is a well-noted pianist, I hope that he will continue to give recitals throughout the summer which will encourage the arts in, and attract attention to his constituency. London is a very successful centre for the arts. It is only right that successes should be remembered. For example, the reopening of the Royal Shakespeare Company at the Barbican three weeks ago was very much due to the enhancement fund recently set up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary.

    London City Ballet
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has for ensuring the future of the London City Ballet.
    Mr. Renton: I very much hope that a solution can be found to the company's financial difficulties. The Arts Council makes decisions relating to the funding of individual arts bodies. I understand that recent discussions between the council and the company have been constructive and moderately encouraging.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for what may give some hope to London City Ballet. Does he accept that over 13 years the ballet company has built up a reputation as one of the leading classical ballet companies in the country, that it tours to about 26 venues, that attendances are over 80 per cent., that it has a leading educational programme and that its closure and disappearance this summer would be a grave blow not just to London but to ballet and the arts countrywide? Will he personally take an interest in the matter so as to ensure that London City Ballet survives and is funded properly?
    Mr. Renton: I saw the chairman of London City Ballet last week and had a long discussion with him. I agree with many of the comments that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has made about the artistic work of the company. I saw its "Cinderella" production at Sadler's Wells just before Christmas, and it was very good indeed, However, the hon. Gentleman, as a fair man, knows the difficulties. He knows that the Arts Council's budget for dance, including ballet, is fully committed. It is a strange notion that the support of a group of successful business men who, by their own endeavours, have funded the London City Ballet for the past 13 years, while the company was being built up, should automatically be replaced by Government support. It is rather difficult to accept that the Government should automatically pick up the bill when that group, for its own reasons, decides to withdraw funding. London City Ballet received a touring grant of £100,000 last year. This year, in view of the slightly smaller number of touring weeks, the grant will be £89,000.
    Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at some of the points that have been made about the London borough grant scheme? There is no doubt that among

    17
    London Members of Parliament there is serious bias over the provision of grants for honourable causes. I want aid to be provided for particularly honourable causes in our boroughs.
    Mr. Renton: The decision as to who is aided under the London borough grant scheme is one for the scheme's board, on which there is a Labour-Liberal majority. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to do everything possible to ensure that the LBG's budget allocation this year is decided quickly and that it is as large as possible. Within those parameters, the Secretary of State for the Environment recommended total grants of more than £30 million. At present, councillors are talking about a somewhat lower level. That is what lies at the heart of the difficulties concerning arts clients. I repeat that it is Labour councillors who, one after another, are jettisoning their arts clients.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Women Civil Servants
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many women are now in post in the civil service at under-secretary level and above; and how many there were 10 years ago?
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): There are now 45 women in the civil service at under-secretary level and above; 10 years ago there were 31. A programme of action to achieve equality of opportunity for women in the civil service has been in place since 1984.
    Mr. Tony Banks: If I were the hon. Lady, I should put in an application.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Currie: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and congratulate him on the 50 per cent. increase in the number of women at the higher levels of the civil service. I do not want to carp, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, in a world in which more than 50 per cent. of the electorate are women, arid in which nearly half of the work force are women, it is time to increase the number of capable women who reach the higher levels of the civil service to something approaching the proportions that they achieve at the lower levels?
    Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of my overall responsibilities as a civil service Minister is to see that the aim that has been voiced by my hon. Friend is realised. I hope that it will be some comfort to her to hear that the proportion of women younger than 45 in the top three grades is higher than the proportion of men in that age group, and that there is a higher proportion of women in grades 5 to 7. The latter figure is up considerably on that of six years ago. That gives me reason to believe that in the years immediately ahead there will be a higher proportion of women in absolutely top positions.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister realise that there is no shortage of talent among women in Britain and that simply saying that he is led to believe that things might get better is not good enough? Can I invite him to set a target to make sure that at least 40 per cent. of all civil service posts, especially those between grades 5 and 7 and grades
    18
    4 and above, will be filled by women within five years? If the Minister sets himself that target, he will earn the congratulations of the whole House.
    Mr. Renton: I have only to look at the Benches around and behind me to realise that there is no shortage of talent among women in Britain. Setting a target would not be a realistic approach. It would be far better to make sure that the top posts go to those with the greatest ability, no matter what sex or ethnic origin. My office is certainly dedicated to that aim and we shall do our utmost to achieve it.
    Sir Dudley Smith: While there is no room for complacency on matters of equality, will my right hon. Friend confirm that our record throughout public service and industry bears up very well in comparison with other countries in the European Community?
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Although the percentage of women in the civil service is still low—indeed, too low—it is increasing pretty rapidly.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what advice has been given by the occupational health service to civil servants required to visit the Gulf region in the course of their official duties.
    Mr. Renton: No general advice has been issued. The occupational health service gives advice accompanied by appropriate briefing and leaflets to all civil servants travelling abroad as and when required.
    Mr. Dalyell: Would it be unduly alarmist to suggest that civil servants, service men and the local population, who are subject to hydrogen sulphide and mixtures of chlorine and hydrocarbons, risk cancer or leukaemia? In those circumstances, will the Minister undertake to look at the statements of Professor Nicholas Wright of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, which suggest that no research is being done along those lines? Should not the Government find out the effects of unprecedented oil fires on human health?
    Mr. Renton: I know of no specific evidence that the hon. Gentleman could adduce to back up the remarks that he has just made. However, the booklet, "Keeping healthy overseas", which is issued by the civil service occupational health service to all civil servants travelling abroad, gives some specific advice. When I was working in the private sector and travelled abroad a great deal for my employers, I was never issued with any such booklet.

    Drug and Alcohol Misuse
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what arrangements are made for counselling drug and alcohol misusers in the civil service.
    Mr. Renton: We advise managers in Departments and agencies to encourage staff with an alcohol or drug abuse problem to seek appropriate counselling or treatment. This may involve giving them the opportunity of talking to a welfare officer or occupational health service staff. They can then be advised on how to seek help for their specific needs.
    Mr. Rathbone: I welcome the concern for those personal problems and urge on my right hon. Friend the need to establish points of contact outside the civil service for people who may have those problems because of the reticence that many feel in seeking help within the civil service.
    Mr. Renton: I accept my hon. Friend's wise suggestions and I shall pass them forward to the civil servants in my office. I should point out that in January 1988 we issued a policy guidance note which was followed up by a pamphlet called "Misuse of drugs: training framework" for personnel managers. We have tried to give personnel managers sensible advice. I shall certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's points are considered.
    Dr. Godman: If counselling has replaced the issuing of disciplinary orders against such civil servants, when
    20
    someone undertakes that counselling or the treatment recommended by the counsellors, is that fact wiped off his or her personal record?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is not possible to be specific in advance as to whether the action taken in individual cases should be only counselling or could also involve something much more serious. If it was a case of the possession of, or trading in, illicit drugs on a Department's premises, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that counselling would not be sufficient and counsellors would have to take a more serious view of such illegal action.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take it after questions on the statement.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister will have gone by then.

Iraq
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the relief of suffering in Iraq. We are faced with suffering and fear on a huge scale—inside Iraq, on both sides of the border with Turkey, on both sides of the border with Iran, and in the demilitarised zone bordering Kuwait. Each of these areas has its difficult problems and in all of them the needs are formidable.
Our response has two elements: first, to keep the refugees alive; and, second, to create conditions in which they can return home in safety.
We have given prompt humanitarian help. We airlifted relief supplies to the Turkish and to the Iranian Red Crescent Societies. With the United States and France, Royal Air Force aircraft have been airdropping supplies into northern Iraq. With the Americans and Germans we are now engaged in a helicopter airbridge. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has arranged for six more Chinook helicopters to deploy to Turkey from the middle of this week, bringing to nine the British helicopters joining in this effort. We are contributing over £20 million to appeals by the United Nations and other international agencies. This includes the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is at present providing the most effective help inside Iraq. Part of this money will go to our own non-governmental organisations whom I met this morning.
We helped bring about Security Council resolution 688 which requires Iraq to co-operate with the United Nations and other international humanitarian organisations and to stop repression. The Iraqis are receiving UN missions led by the Secretary-General's representative, Mr. Suy, and by the UN co-ordinator, Prince Sadruddin.
At the special European Council at Luxembourg on 8 April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put forward a four-point plan to build on the resolutions of the Security Council. First, he proposed the establishment of temporary safe havens in Iraq, in which UN officials can provide for the basic needs of refugees and monitor their security until they can return to their homes in safety. Secondly, he proposed a generous contribution by the European Community to the UN and other appeals for funds for humanitarian relief. The Community immediately contributed 150 million ecu.
Thirdly, apart from food and humanitarian supplies, he proposed that economic and financial sanctions against Iraq should remain in force until Saddam Hussein's offer of an amnesty is made permanent and the international community is satisfied that persecution of minorities in Iraq had ceased. Fourthly, he proposed a strict arms embargo against Iraq to remain in force as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.
We are vigorously pursuing this proposal for safe havens. Our aim is to create places and conditions in which the refugees can feel secure. We are not talking of a territorial enclave, a separate Kurdistan or a permanent UN presence. We support the territorial integrity of Iraq.
But we have to get the refugees off the mountains. That is the unanimous view of those who have visited the area on behalf of the ODA and the British NGOs with whom I talked this morning. Some refugees are now being
22
admitted to places in Turkey and Iran where they can be better cared for. That is welcome, but it is not the right answer except temporarily. We should not aim to add a new permanent refugee problem to the others that already disfigure the world.
The Kurds should be enabled and encouraged to return to their homes, where effective help can be given, but they will not do that unless they feel secure. Undertakings such as those made yesterday by the Iraqi Government will not suffice for that purpose. The United Nations presence in Iraq must build up fast and solidly to monitor and to ensure the safety of those whom the Security Council has resolved to help. We share the view of President Bush when he said yesterday:
"We will not tolerate any interference in this massive international relief effort".
To help to carry the British relief effort forward, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will visit Turkey and Iran, including the frontier areas, later this week.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Opposition share the horror of the whole country—and indeed of all the civilised world—at the repression carried out by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds, the Shi'ites and many other inhabitants of Iraq. We strongly support Security Council resolution 688, which calls on the Iraqi regime to end the repression and which demands access by international humanitarian organisations to alleviate the suffering. We welcome the assistance already provided, but we believe that it should be increased substantially by the United Kingdom, as well as by the European Community and other agencies, not only for the Kurds themselves, but for Turkey and Iran which are faced with such a problem in seeking to take in Kurdish refugees.
We think that it is right that proper protection should be given to the teams going into Iraq to provide that help, but we do not believe that that should be the limit of our action. We stand by our view that the war aims against Iraq should not have extended, and should still not extend, to attempts to dismember that country or to change its regime, however vile that regime may be. The question of who governs Iraq must be decided by the Iraqi people.
At the same time, resolution 688 authorises the United Nations Secretary-General to send a mission to Iraq to report on the plight of the civilian population and in particular on the plight of the Kurds. I ask the Foreign Secretary to instruct our Permanent Representative at the Security Council to propose at the Security Council that the Secretary-General sends a mission to investigate charges of genocide, with the intention of the earliest possible report, bearing in mind that the United Nations genocide convention authorises punishment of those who transgress its provisions. Although we do not believe that any one country or combination of countries should send troops into Iraq for whatever purposes other than for the protection of relief missions, we believe that if genocide charges are proved the military staff committee of the Security Council should consider, as a matter of urgency, what appropriate action might be taken by the international community to seek to bring such acts to an end and to deal with those responsible.
The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the wider middle east crisis. Will he give his full support to the efforts of the United States Secretary of State, Mr. James Baker, to convene an international conference? Does the right

23
hon. Gentleman agree that what is going on in Iraq now, horrifying though it is, is no more than the latest dismaying symptom of an endemic crisis in the area which must be solved? Unless there is a settlement which brings security to all nations in the region, including Israel, and which provides self-determination for the Palestinian people, what we are witnessing now will be seen not only as the bloody aftermath of one war but as the prelude to another war which will be bloodier still.
Mr. Hurd: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I confirm that we intend steadily to build up and increase the British relief effort and to apply pressure continuously day by day, as we have done for a long time, on the United Nations and on other agencies to do the same.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman correctly said that genocide is a crime under international law—the convention of 1948—and that the contracting parties have agreed to prevent and punish that crime. People charged with genocide can be tried before national courts. Proof is required of the intention to destroy in whole or in part one of the groups defined in the convention by carrying out certain acts.
The Secretary-General has, in a way, anticipated the right hon. Gentleman's point, because, as he said, he has sent Mr. Suy, his representative on human rights, to Baghdad. It will be sensible for the Security Council to consider very carefully what Mr. Suy may have to report, which will bear on the question of genocide.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's third point. I discussed the problem on the telephone with Mr. Baker on Saturday. He knows that his efforts, which are energetic and well conceived, will continue to receive our support.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the initiatives taken by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by himself to help the Kurds and Shias stand out as highly creative acts of statesmanship in a very negative international climate? Does he further accept that there will be no feeling of safety for the Kurds or Shias, who have been the subject of the most appalling atrocities, no guarantee for us or the United Nations that any resolutions will be fully implemented and satisfied and no peace or security in the region, even for the Kuwaitis and neighbouring countries, until in Baghdad there are the glimmerings of a Government who have a minimal respect for human rights and do not believe that blood and killing are the main weapons of governing a country?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I cannot conceive of the present regime in Iraq, which has shown itself to be aggressive abroad and barbarously oppressive at home, finding its place again as an important middle eastern state in the international community.
The initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has moved the international effort forward, both as regards the United Nations and some of our most important allies. Needs are multiplying all the time, so we cannot be complacent about our response so far, but the British initiative has moved the response forward.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that logistical supply and air supremacy were important factors in the allied victory in
24
the Gulf war. Will he confirm that the same standard of expertise of supply will be used for humanitarian purposes? Will he further confirm that the allies are willing to use air supremacy to protect Kurdish refugees?
Mr. Hurd: The first point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. The international relief effort, in complicated and difficult conditions, is using the full expertise and experience which we all have and which, increasingly, is being pooled. The effort was originally focused heavily on the Turkish side, but the greater problem, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will confirm, is on the Iranian side. We shall increasingly find our effort and those of some of our allies and the United Nations agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who is in Iran at the moment, being devoted to that aspect.
The United States has given clear warnings to the Iraqi Government, the importance of which was stressed to me by Mr. Baker on Saturday. The fundamental point is that a huge international life-saving operation is under way and the Security Council has insisted that Iraq co-operates with that effort. If the relief effort is harassed or frustrated by Iraq, it will be the responsibility of the United Nations to protect both the helpers and the helped, and the Security Council would have to act on that responsibility.
Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is overwhelming support in this country and in Europe and growing support in the United States for the concept of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of safe havens for the Kurds and, I hope, for the Shias, too? Does he further agree that if there should be a conflict between our commitment to non-interference in the affairs of other countries and our determination to help refugees in danger of persecution, whether in Kurdistan or south Iraq, we shall come down firmly on the side of the refugees, even if that means co-operating with some of our allies in the use of military power—I hope, under the aegis of the United Nations and, if not, otherwise?
Mr. Hurd: It is important to continue, as we have begun, with the authority of the United Nations. Security Council resolutions 687 and 688, in both of which we had a substantial hand, extend the boundaries of international action and thus strike the balance, about which my right hon. Friend is talking, in a rather different place from hitherto. I chose my words carefully in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) to show that we believe that that process should, if necessary, continue.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: For the people of Kurdistan, genocide is proven. Resolution 688 has been breached—there can be no doubt about that—in so far as Saddam Hussein continues to repress the people of Kurdistan. The Kurdish leaders desperately beg for military action by the major powers, preferably through the United Nations, through the use of aircraft against the equipment used for the repression of the Kurds. Why, when on 28 March we raised in the Chamber the imminent catastrophe in the region, was there such a delay in providing aid? Is it not true that the Kurds have had to wait for nearly two weeks for the first British aid to reach

25
them? If that is not true, will the Foreign Secretary give us the date when the first aid was received by people in Kurdistan?
Mr. Hurd: Long before the Kurdish rebellion the United Nations put it to the world that it thought that in the aftermath of the Gulf war there was likely to be a strong movement of refugees out of Iraq. That was foreseen. We provided a further £8 million, including £1 million to the United Nations disaster relief organisation, precisely for that purpose, not knowing then exactly when or where the movement would be or the numbers involved. It was a case of an international organisation foreseeing trouble, asking for help and getting help from us. That was long before the debate. The planning to deal with the immediate crisis began before the Easter weekend and has built up ever since. I was in touch with those concerned over the Easter weekend. The hon. Gentleman asked for a particular date, and I shall provide him with it.
Mr. Roger Gale: The decisive action taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the recess to send aid to Kurdish refugees as a damage control exercise and his further proposal to establish safe havens have been most welcome, but is it not a fact that there will be no safe haven for the Kurdish people or the minority peoples of Iraq so long as Saddam Hussein is in power? Will the Government send a message both to President Bush and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the effect that we expect whatever action, including military force, is necessary to secure safe havens and to remove Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Hurd: Those are two distinct questions and I have already answered the first. If the United Nations, under the terms used in the Security Council resolution 688, is insisting on Iraqi co-operation in the humanitarian effort —about the need for which there can be no possible doubt —the need to protect that operation for the benefit of the helpers and the helped, should it be frustrated or harassed, is clear.
No one who followed not just what President Bush said but what my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) or the present Prime Minister said could have been led to believe at any stage that it was part of our purpose to change the Government of Iraq.
Mr. Peter Shore: Is not the cause of this vast tragedy quite clear? Is it not entirely due to the wicked and continuous persecution of his own people by Saddam Hussein? Is it not the case that we already have the authority of the Security Council in its resolution 688 to take action to stop Saddam Hussein from persecuting his own people? That authority is in the text of the resolution and it calls upon him to cease immediately the persecution of the people of Iraq. Does not that resolution come under the mandatory chapter 7 of the Security Council? Is there not a moral obligation on Britain and other nations to undertake such actions as are necessary to stop Saddam Hussein's persecution of his own people?
Mr. Hurd: That is precisely what we are doing within the terms of that resolution. We are bringing into effect a humanitarian effort in circumstances which I think are unprecedented in the history of the United Nations. That is happening under terms and phrases of insistence which are, I suspect, although I have not done all the research,
26
unique. That effort needs to proceed and if it does so without harassment or interference by the Iraqis, over time the Kurds—although not just the Kurds because the Opposition are right in believing that it goes further than them—will have the confidence to return to their homes. If that effort is harassed and frustrated, those Kurds will not return and the Security Council has a responsibility, which we have fully emphasised for some time, under resolution 688 to ensure that that effort succeeds.
Sir Peter Blaker: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to those already given by my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends on his initiatives. The House will welcome what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary just said in response to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on the availability of air cover. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new mood of co-operation between the permanent members of the Security Council has given an opportunity for promoting the role of the United Nations, as first shown by resolution 688, in dealing with cases of genocide or near genocide in cases such as this? Will my right hon. Friend persevere with his triple policy of humanitarian aid to the Kurds, sanctuary for the Kurds, and economic pressure on Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his succinct analysis of the situation and the policy. The United Nations faces a difficult and crucial test. It has passed the test of reversing aggression. Very few in this House were in any doubt about the need to pass that test, nor about the effectiveness, speed and skill with which it was done. Such action was necessary and was done well. Now we face a more difficult problem, which we have been discussing for the past half an hour. It represents a more complicated test to the United Nations, but, in my view, it is just as important as the first test.
Dr. David Owen: As resolution 688 has been breached in every particular from the moment it was passed, and since President Bush has made it clear that he does not intend to put United States forces on the ground in Iraqi Kurdistan but will give air protection north of the 36th parallel, is it not the duty of the Security Council to pass a resolution for a UN peacekeeping force so as to provide a haven in Iraqi Kurdistan? If it is to be vetoed, let the world see which countries are prepared to veto or not to support such a resolution.
Mr. Hurd: I do not see any great advantage for the Kurds in putting forward a proposal of that kind at a time when and in circumstances in which it would not succeed. I do not think that the Kurds on the mountain tops would be powerfully impressed by that.
The right hon. Gentleman will have noted the phrases used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister under questioning on this point yesterday. I have given a rather careful amplification of them in what I said to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). No one who has studied what we have said can be in any doubt about our firmness in the matter.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My right hon. Friend and his Department have had ample notice concerning the specific case of a constituent of mine—a British-born constituent and her children—whose Iraqi

27
husband is in Sufwan camp and has applied to join his wife in the United Kingdom. What specific steps in which my right hon. Friend has confidence are being taken on a continuing basis to safeguard this man personally until the resolution of the question whether he is to be admitted to the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and glad to be able to tell him that we have now authorised a visa allowing Mr. Jarah to enter this country.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: To pursue the long-term aim that the Secretary of State mentioned—that the Kurds should return home—has his Department evaluated the possibilities of that happening in anything less than the longer and longer term? For example, what conditions would have to be obtained from Baghdad before that could happen? What worries me is that I do not see it happening.
Mr. Hurd: The best way for it to happen is that the United Nations presence which has already begun and which is rather stronger partly because of our insistence should build up fast and solidly in the north of Iraq in and around the Kurdish homes, and that that presence should be so robust that the Kurds do not have to rely simply on assurances, which they already have from Baghdad, but can hear reports from their homes that it is safe to return. We are nowhere near that, but it is a resonable objective which lay at the heart of my right hon. Friend's proposal.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I welcome the vigorous response by the Government to the Kurdish crisis, but will my right hon. Friend remember that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is desperately short of cash to deal with refugee problems in all parts of the world? Can he assure me that the extra money being devoted to Kurdish relief will not result in a diversion of funds from refugee relief efforts in other parts of the world?
Mr. Hurd: That point was powerfully put to me by representatives of the relief agencies who came to see me this morning. It is obviously important, especially because of the tragic needs in Africa, that the requirements not only of refugee work but of all relief agencies should not suffer because of what is happening in Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is making an announcement today about extra help for Africa——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where is she?
Mr. Hurd: She is joining in the opening of the new bank for eastern Europe, but she will make an announcement today about fresh help for Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State, is just about now in the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels emphasising the importance of the Community responding in the way that my hon. Friend requests.
Mr. Jim Sillars: The Secretary of State speaks about people feeling secure, but they will feel secure only when the killing stops because the killing is the cause of the refugee flood. The Secretary of State implied that the Government and President Bush's Government would use air supremacy in the event of harassment of the
28
international relief effort. Will they apply the same equation and tell Saddam Hussein that air supremacy will be employed if the killing does not stop?
Mr. Hurd: When we discuss this area, we are talking about the military capability of the United States, and the hon. Gentleman should be aware of that. If the hon. Gentleman has studied what the Americans have said on this matter, he will know that it goes a long way. I am not authorised to add to that warning, but, as I said when reporting on my conversation with Mr. Baker on Saturday, the Americans clearly intend the warning to be taken seriously.
Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scale of the problem of refugees from Iraq in Turkey and especially in Iran suggests that the problem will remain for a long time? Can he say more about the co-operation that we can extend to both countries, both bilaterally and through the United Nations?
Mr. Hurd: We are in close touch with the Turks. The Turkish Prime Minister is in London today and has been speaking to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are aware of Turkey's difficulties and we shall do our best, as part of the international effort, to build up Turkey's effectiveness and capability to the extent to which the Turkish Government feel the need. Our contacts with Iran have recently been less close than before for reasons which the House knows all about. Iran has a bigger refugee problem, and that is why I am anxious that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, on her visit to the area later this week, should visit Tehran as well as the frontier areas, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has done.
Mr. David Winnick: Although there are good reasons, which I accept, why the allies did not proceed into Baghdad and finish the job which undoubtedly a large majority of British people wanted to see finished, does the Foreign Secretary agree that as long as Saddam Hussein and his murderous cronies remain in power there will be no peace or security in the region in accordance with Security Council resolution 678? Is he aware of the great strength of feeling in the country and in the House, not only about the horrifying stories in the press and on television about starving men and babies in arms, but about the continuing crimes and atrocities being committed in Iraq by Saddam Hussein's thugs? Is it not time that the allies made it perfectly clear that, if these crimes and atrocities continue, military action, which is provided by Security Council resolutions, will be taken? Surely the world cannot remain indifferent to what is happening in the area.
Mr. Hurd: There is no indifference, and I hope that what I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have said shows that. There is no indifference here, in Europe or in the United States, which, of course, carries and will continue to carry the lion's share of the responsibility. The hon. Gentleman should be aware of that.
Perhaps I could amplify my answer to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who asked about the first relief supplies. Eighty tons of relief supplies were flown to Turkey on 5 April, and they were the first airlifted supplies from any country to arrive in Turkey for the Kurds.
Sir Richard Luce: Does not this Kurdish tragedy highlight the fact that there is no sensible long-term solution to such tragedies by the provision of homes in other countries and permanent refugee camps but that the answer lies in the countries of origin where the tragedies are created? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the United Nations to take a far more robust line on the gross abuse of minorities, in this case in Iraq, by the continued imposition of sanctions until the problem is solved?
Mr. Hurd: That is the third point of the plan which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined in Luxembourg last week. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Greville Janner: How many people have already died as a result of disease, starvation and our failure and that of the United Nations to bring adequate relief to the Kurdish people? Does the Secretary of State not see that, however worthy may be the efforts made so far, they are absolutely inadequate to meet the awful need that we see every night on our television screens?
Mr. Hurd: I agree that the efforts are not yet enough, but they are being intensified and multiplied. The Kurds need food, clean water, tents, blankets and basic medical care, particularly for women and children. It is not a question of sophisticated surgical equipment or other things that have been needed as a result of earthquakes and other emergencies in the past. It is important that precious time and precious money are concentrated on what is needed and not on extras. I cannot answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question about how many people have died.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend rightly listed the basic necessities that must reach these poor, wretched people. We see every night on television that the law of the jungle prevails. The strongest get there first; they get the most and the weak are left on the sidelines. What steps have been taken to formulate a control, co-ordination and command structure? Even when supplies arrive in quantity, they are of no use unless they reach the people and unless priorities are established by someone on the ground.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is absolutely on the point. It is virtually impossible to provide an orderly distribution of help on the tops of mountains. That is why, temporarily, some refugees are, quite rightly, being allowed into Turkey and Iran where it is possible to help them in a more orderly fashion. In Turkey, aid is being organised by the Turks and the Americans; in Iran, it is being organised by the Iranians, the Red Cross and, I hope, increasingly by the United Nations. Although those are not the best answers, they are necessary answers. The real answer is to enable and encourage the refugees to go home and to provide effective and secure help for them there. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a matter not simply of getting the supplies to them but of distributing those supplies in a reasonably orderly and fair manner.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Secretary of State agree that, having more than tacitly encouraged the Kurdish uprising, the international community has a real responsibility to the Kurds? Is it not all the more
30
urgent and essential that there be United Nations intervention, under the UN convention on genocide, to prevent genocide from continuing?
Mr. Hurd: I answered fully a similar question put by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and have nothing to add.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: How long can we and other Governments pick up the tab for a humanitarian problem that Saddam Hussein would dearly love to export? Will the Government continue to insist that sanctuaries in Turkey and Iran are no substitute for safe havens in Iraq, and that a return to their homelands must be by supervision rather than intervention? Once the principle of the inviolacy of sovereign nations is breached, we are all lost.
Mr. Hurd: I follow my hon. Friend's point. We are encouraging the United Nations to take action that is virtually—perhaps wholly—unique in its history: to mount a huge international relief operation as urgently as possible in a country like Iraq, insisting on co-operation and ensuring that that effort is not harassed or frustrated. That is the right way to reconcile the two considerations that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is the Secretary of State aware that many in this country who believed that the only way to bring peace and security to the middle east was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein now believe that, having encouraged the uprising of the Kurds and others against Saddam Hussein, President Bush, not to mention the Prime Minister, is now acting like Pontius Pilate and something realistic should be done? How much of the £29 million aid from this country is reaching the Kurds? Is it not a fact that the money is going into a pool to help all those who suffered in the Gulf war?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member used the word "realistic". I hope that what I have said about what we are doing is realistic. Some of the other suggestions are unrealistic. We have to be, and are being, vigorous and energetic on this matter, and the outline that I have given to the House shows that.
There is a problem of supply and distribution in terms of the aid given, hut, certainly in Turkey, we are increasingly looking to buying local food rather than shipping food from here. That would now be a good deal more effective. We want to get the supplies in effectively by air drop and, increasingly, by helicopter, because that is more sensible in terms of orderly distribution, not just to the Kurds, but to all people in distress in Iraq, including Shias in the south. We are not talking exclusively about the suffering of Kurds because others are also suffering.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is not the crux of the problem the fact that the dictator of Iraq is a wicked and bloodthirsty tyrant and that as long as he remains the policy of the violent repression of the minorities will continue, and no guarantees offered by any Iraqi Government are worth anything? What can be done about getting rid of Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Hurd: The suggestion is sometimes made that, instead of bringing the war to an end, we should have marched on Baghdad and overthrown Saddam Hussein. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) nods in agreement. The House should consider the ramifications

31
of that suggestion and consider why neither the previous Prime Minister or the present Prime Minister nor President Bush has ever endorsed that aim. One would have not simply to overthrow Saddam Hussein but to choose, implant and sustain a successor, month after month, year after year. That is what I mean by being realistic.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the immense revulsion and groundswell of opinion in this country arises, not only because of the terrible tragedies portrayed on television screens, but because the British people, like the Kurdish and Shia people, read President Bush's lips when he said that the people of Iraq must rise and oppose President Hussein? Having willed the means and that means having failed, does the Foreign Secretary realise that we now expect the coalition to pursue the freedom and protection of the Kurds and Shias with the same resolution as the liberation of Kuwait was fought for?
Mr. Hurd: I described what the British Government are doing, and the record of the House and the Library contain what British Ministers have said about our aims and objectives throughout the affair. No one could seriously accuse us of lack of energy, realism or will, either in the earlier phase or in what we are doing now.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is at least possible that the Shias and Kurds were encouraged to take up arms against the Iraqi Government by the words used by the western leaders? Would it not be truly dreadful if they were encouraged to fight on by vague talk about the use of force on their behalf when President Bush has already said that the forces of the United States will not engage in a civil war in Iraq?
Mr. Hurd: The President said that, and he also said, as I quoted in my statement:
"We will not tolerate any interference in this massive international relief effort".
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us exactly how much aid the United Kingdom has given in terms of pounds, not ecus? How much do we intend to give, and how much did we spend on the war? How many aircraft and helicopters have we mobilised for a relief operation, and how many did we mobilise during the war?
Mr. Hurd: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced, the sum involved is £20 million, of which £12 million will go through the EC as a result of the decisions taken last week. The remaining £8 million will be reserved for the direct British help, including help to our own non-governmental organisations. I hope that our agencies will apply for help through contributions from the European Commission in Brussels. I can give the other figures for which the hon. Lady asked, but not without notice. I hope that she is not implying that there has been any falling away of vigour. That is not borne out by the facts and figures that I have given or by the plans that I have announced.
Sir John Stokes: In view of the mood of the House, and in view of what I am about
32
to say, may I remind my right hon. Friend that I spent nine months in Kirkuk and Kurdistan in the last war, and that I like and admire the Kurds? If I read the mood of the House right, it wants military intervention by our forces. I believe that that would be wrong and dangerous. I am worried that some of those who call loudest for military intervention are those who would deny us proper arms to defend ourselves.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend advances a robust argument that I have not been making in those terms. Before some hon. Members put forward plans—sometimes rather grandiose ones—for the future government of Iraq, I urge the House to consider the realities and to ask itself who would carry out such plans.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is no simple and comprehensive solution to the tragedy, and that certainly military action in Iraq is not such a solution? As it is clear that our priority must be to reduce the dying of babies, their mothers and others in the mountains, is not the best short-term, practical solution—albeit not a very satisfactory one—to encourage Iran and Turkey, perhaps through bribes and inducements, to allow many more people to come down from the mountains so that they can be supported in less hostile climatic circumstances?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman puts it entirely right. That is an immediate necessity, and one that we have been urging on the Turks. The Iranians have allowed their border to be open fairly consistently. As the hon. Gentleman would concede, however, it is not the right long-term answer. That answer is to enable the Kurds to return to their homes in safety.
Mr. David Tredinnick: I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, having argued in the House two weeks ago that we should be dropping aid to the Kurds. Is it not a fact that great responsibility lies with the Americans, who incited through a CIA-promoting radio station the Shias and the Kurds to revolt? Is it not a fact that history will relate that, while President Bush fiddled, Kurdistan burnt?
Mr. Hurd: I am not answering for the sort of activities, or allegations and suggestions relating to them, to which my hon. Friend refers. What we have said about the internal situation—what my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said when she was in charge of the Government and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said since then—is on the record. I do not believe that the remarks of my right hon. Friends and others bear the sort of construction that is sometimes rather loosely put upon them.
Miss Kate Hoey: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while in the long term the only solution is the establishment of a form of homeland for the Kurdish people, the immediate and overriding priority is to get the Kurdish people off the mountains? As the Turkish Prime Minister is now in Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that the Prime Minister will ask him, the Turkish Prime Minister, to consider whether his country could do more, despite the difficulties that it is undergoing, and open its borders and so let the people off the

33
mountains so that the humanitarian aid that is going to them can be organised properly to ensure that it reaches those in need?
Mr. Hurd: That is precisely the course of the conversation which my right hon. Friend had with the Turkish Prime Minister today.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the tremendous efforts made by the British Government to bring immediate help to the Kurdish and other people are widely recognised and that he does not need to feel in the least defensive about what we have done so far or what we intend to do? Does he agree that to talk about Kurdistan as we heard the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) do on television at lunchtime—which was not at all what her boss said in the House a few moments ago—is extremely dangerous? Trying to carve up the areas of the middle east on supposed tribal lines in the conference halls and chambers of the west is exactly what we did 70 years ago and has resulted in a great deal of unhappiness since.
Mr. Hurd: The countries of the area disagree about most things, but they are all clear about one thing—the need not to meddle with frontiers. But within frontiers it is entirely reasonable and right, as I said on 13 March in the House, that the Kurds should enjoy autonomy and decent respect for their way of life. That is our view and that must be the long-term aim.
Mr. David Young: Did not the Government go along with President Bush when he argued for revolt within Iraq? Was not part of the problem caused, as General Schwarzkopf said, by our being suckered into allowing Iraq to use helicopters? Will the British Government press the American Government to make a clear and concise statement that any aircraft used by the Iraqis to harass the refugees or those bringing them aid will be shot down? What discussions has the Secretary of State had with adjoining territories such as Turkey, which have their own Kurdish problems, to ensure that the refugees can be accommodated and that those problems do not stop aid to those who are dying?
Mr. Hurd: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have referred in careful terms to the emphasis which Mr. Secretary Baker placed when I spoke to him on Saturday on the warnings which the United States has made about Iraqi military activity. I refer the hon. Gentleman to that. On his second point, he is right. Of course, both Iran and Turkey include large numbers of Kurds and at various times in the past have had substantial reservations and difficulties as a result of that. But to do both the Turkish and Iranian Governments justice, they are not letting those sensitivities get in the way of help. We are urging them in that direction—certainly the Turks. When the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), goes to Iran, no doubt she will do the same.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Why is the distribution of aid so haphazard that loads are thrown at people in masses, as we see on television? Can something be done to underline what my right hon. Friend said to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer)
34
about securing orderly distribution so that we do not see simply survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle operating?
Mr. Hurd: Dropping food or anything else in large pallets from fixed-wing aircraft is an unsatisfactory way of getting relief through. The only thing to be said for it is that it is quick. If there are no roads to the mountain tops and no places where helicopters can land, it is the only way of getting supplies through quickly. However, it is imperfect. It is not the best way. It produces the hazards and sometimes tragedies to which my hon. Friend refers. That is why the Americans on a larger scale and we on a substantial scale are building up the helicopter effort, which enables much better distribution.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I had hoped to be able to call all hon. Members, but I think that I shall not now be able to do so. I shall call three more from each side and then we must move on as we have a busy day ahead of us and a prayer this evening which must end at 11.30 pm.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The Foreign Secretary must be aware that the British people are appalled that the so-called liberation of Kuwait has unfolded into the massive tragedy that we now see on our screens every evening. Compared to the vigour with which the Government pursued the liberation of Kuwait, their commitment to the refugees can only be described as relative inertia.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, mentioned Iran. Many thousands of refugees are moving towards Iran and I have a constituent whose entire family are there. They have been turned away from the British embassy when trying to make contact with their relatives here in Britain. What undertakings can the Secretary of State give about arrangements that will be made in Iran not merely so that one visa may be granted but to allow refugees with families in Britain to contact them and to ensure that the proper relief structures are put in place there?
Mr. Hurd: I do not know why the hon. Lady talks about the "so-called" liberation of Kuwait. That demonstrates a cast of mind that somewhat clouds her judgment on the rest. I do not believe that what this country has been doing to get the relief effort going could conceivably be called inertia since we were first in the field and are perhaps pressing for the build-up of the international effort more energetically than anyone else.
If the hon. Lady will give me the details of the case that she mentioned I shall look into it. At present the embassy in Tehran does not issue visas.
Mr. David Atkinson: Notwithstanding the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), can he confirm that this uprising is only the latest in many by the Kurds in response to their demands for self-determination, which was promised to them by the great powers after the first world war, under the treaty of Sevres in 1920? As long as the rest of the world continues to ignore that demand for self-determination, there will always be such uprisings, which will be brutally put down. Will he ensure that that matter, along with self-determination for the Palestinians, is sought to be resolved in the wake of the outcome of the Gulf war?
Mr. Hurd: The Kurdish leaders who came to see my right hon. Friend at No. 10 Downing street last week were clear that their demand was for autonomy within Iraq. That seems to me to be an entirely reasonable aim for them and one that we can certainly support.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Why should the Kurds, the Shias or any other oppressed people trust western Governments, especially this Government and the Bush Administration, ever again? Clearly they were asked to rise up against a brutal dictator and, having put their trust in Governments—which I would not have done—perhaps bemused by the poetic phrases about the rights of small nations, they have been betrayed. Why are a million people on the borders of Turkey and Iran worth £20 million when a million people oppressed by the same Government in Kuwait were worth £3,000 million? That is the difference between the amount of aid to the Kurdish people and the money spent on the war in Kuwait.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member would have left Kuwait under Saddam Hussein's rule. I cannot think why that would have been of any advantage to the Kurds.
Mr. Richard Alexander: My right hon. Friend has properly laid emphasis upon the importance of getting the Kurds back to their homes. Is not the key to that a guarantee that when they get there they will be able to live in safety? Is not the message coming through to my right hon. Friend from the House and from outside that the United Nations, which could send peacekeeping forces to do that, is being less than robust in attempting to do so?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) also put that point to me, and I answered it in terms that I consider to be realistic. I followed carefully my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's words on television yesterday. I do not exclude the possibility of such an answer any more than he did, but I know that it would not succeed now.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that, during our debate on 21 January after hostilities had begun, I urged him to set up two working parties? The first would review the objectives and operations of the United Nations to take advantage of the new circumstances following the end of the cold war; the second would examine the organisation of the relief and rehabilitation that would certainly be required when hostilities ended. The right hon. Gentleman may also recall that I sent a letter backing up what I had said with further suggestions, to which he gave what I would call a typically Foreign Office reply. What specific action did he take?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's first suggestion lies outside the terms of my statement. I have already answered his second point: the United Nations disaster relief organisation anticipated—and asked member states to anticipate, and contribute accordingly—a movement of refugees out of Iraq after the war, and we have contributed.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If no direct action is taken against Saddam Hussein following what has happened to the Kurdish people, we can only conclude that no act is barbaric enough for the international community to intervene, provided that it is inflicted by a Government on their own peopole. Is not the logical
36
conclusion of such thinking that the only crime committed by Hitler that justified intervention was his failure to restrict the slaughter of Jews to his own countrymen?
Although I understand the logic of the position that the Government have adopted, constituents whom I have met over the past two weeks have not understood it, and I for one am at a loss to explain it to them.
Mr. Hurd: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that his constituents who served in the Gulf should now be on duty in Baghdad, but that is the implication of what he has said. I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes).
There is no doubt about the indignation that is felt about the suffering of the Kurds, or about the importance of mounting an effective operation—not just dropping food, but ensuring that relief is protected and that the Kurds will eventually be able to return to their homes. That, surely, is a realistic course on which the international community is agreed, as is shown by, in particular, resolutions 687 and 688.
If, however, that course were frustrated and did not succeed—as I have made clear in answer to several questions—a different position would arise, and the Security Council would have to address it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is suggesting that we should now put our troops into Baghdad and install a new ruler—or that we should have done so in the past, and should now be sustaining that new ruler—he is verging on what I, perhaps with a good many other people in this country, regard as unrealistic territory.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I have just returned from a five-day visit to Iran and Iraq. I have seen for myself the most abject misery—misery that I had not believed possible. The scenes are indescribable. I saw a 60 km line of cars stuck on a hilltop, where they have been for more than 11 days waiting to cross the border to Iran. Those who have managed to cross the border, however, are still experiencing dreadful conditions. They are at the top of a mountain about the same height as Snowdon, in winter conditions—freezing at night and bitterly cold during the day—and without proper cover. The makeshift tents that they have constructed are made of the thinnest plastic, the kind in which clothes are returned from the cleaners. It is entirely impracticable as a protection from the weather.
Mothers who have crossed the border to Iran are trying to shelter their children. A mother with a baby in her arms came up and asked me to take it to hospital: it was cold, blue and clearly going to die. I had to turn away because there were hundreds of others in the same condition. I saw the food deliveries. We have seen pictures of that on television. It is exactly like that. Desperate people are scrabbling for food. Again, that is on the Iranian side of the border. On the other side of the border, people have managed to bring in some supplies—those who are lucky enough to have some form of transport. Others have no means of transport. Barefoot, they have walked many long miles—taking over 10 days perhaps to walk to the border. Some of the women are wearing totally inadequate clothes. They look as though they have come straight out of their homes, without any protection. When I went there with a group of diplomats, including ambassadors, who had witnessed scenes of famine, flood and earthquake all over

37
the world, they said that never before had they seen such scenes. The same is true of the aid workers whom I met there.
I saw no signs of British aid on the Iran side of the border. That aid may have gone to Turkey, but it certainly had not gone to Iran. I asked many reporters in the area, but they said the same—that there was no evidence of British aid. The only aeroplane that I saw on the airfield was a Russian aeroplane.
I raised the matter in the House before the Easter recess and asked what the Government proposed to do at that time about distributing humanitarian aid to the whole of Iraq. We have, as the Foreign Secretary knows, the statement of the United Nations team that has been into Iraq. The team described is as a catastrophe and set out the need for medicine, food and clothes.
The Red Crescent in Iran, with whose director I spoke early last week, has managed to cope so far with the enormous influx of refugees. The situation is obviously much worse in Iran—a point that I stressed to the Foreign Secretary—because I million people have already crossed the border and the estimate is that another 1 million people may be trying to get across the border. Iran, therefore, desperately needs help. The Red Crescent in Iran says that is has come to the end of its tether. It has had experience of dealing with earthquakes and the Iran-Iraq war. To some extent, they were prepared, in that they had camps close to the border and a certain number of tents. When the Red Crescent asked the Save the Children Fund for help—a group of its representatives was present when I spoke to the director of the Red Crescent—it asked particularly for tents but it was told by the Save the Children Fund that it did not have in the United Kingdom a supply of tents in the numbers needed. What they need most of all are tents, clothing, powdered milk for the babies, food and teams of doctors and nurses.
I saw a French team of 150 doctors from Medecins Sans Frontieres, which is well known to everyone, and asked why such an organisation can get a group of doctors quickly into a disaster area while we, who have faced similar tragedies in many parts of the world, cannot. I met the French aid Minister who had been in the area for six days. He felt desperate about the situation and said that he was going back to report o President Mitterrand in Paris.
I urge the Government to give particular attention to the needs of Iran, which has coped very well so far, but it cannot do so any longer. The governor of west Azerbaijan, where the main bulk of the refugees are going, said that 80 per cent. of the refugees were in hospitals in his province and that 800 emergency surgical operations have been carried out on the refugees. Injured people are still to be found on both sides of the border.
On Saturday I travelled about 40 miles into Iraq. I heard the shelling coming from Sulaymaniyah, which at present is held by Iraqi troops. The shells were aimed at Kurdish fighters on the hillsides surrounding the town.
I spoke to the main Kurdish leader, Jalal Talabani, in his headquarters, hidden away in the hills. He said that, although he was grateful for any suggestions as to how the desperate situation in which Iraq finds itself might be solved, he could not understand why the international community, if it were prepared to offer safe havens within Kurdistan, could not make the whole of Iraqi Kurdistan a safe haven for the Kurds. That is a matter that will have to be addressed. Talabani said that he was not in favour of safe havens, as such areas would be surrounded by areas
38
of hostility. He is in favour of a political solution that will enable the Kurdish people to live in peace in their own country. As the Foreign Secretary has said, what the Kurdish people want is autonomy within Iraq. That is the very least that the international community should aim to provide.
The situation is desperate, both for the Kurds and for the Shias. There are United Nations resolutions under which the international community could take action. I appeal to the Government to do everything in their power to deal with the situation, including the provision of aid on a vastly increased scale. I am not convinced that aid has been provided on anything like the necessary scale. Most of all, I appeal to the Foreign Secretary to aim for a political solution to the dreadful situation in which the Kurdish and Shi'ite people find themselves. Saddam Hussein is still killing, killing, killing, in Iraq. This is genocide, and it calls for an international response.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has drawn on her memories of the immediate past. At the meeting that I had this morning, there were three or four other people, including Dr. Barrow of the Overseas Development Administration, who had recently returned —some of them last night—from various parts of the area, and whose vivid recollections bear out entirely what the hon. Lady has just said. The House will have found no hint of exaggeration in her description of what she witnessed.
It is certainly true that the help that we have been providing on an increasing scale has gone overwhelmingly to the Turkish side of the border. However—and I said this before the hon. Lady asked me to do so—it is clear that, in terms of size, the greater problem arises on the Iranian side. It may have been since the hon. Lady's departure that we flew the first supplies directly to Iran. We shall continue to provide supplies.
The problem is how to get them up to the area where they are needed. Just before coming to the House, I saw a telegram to the effect that the closest airport is too small to receive aeroplanes of the type needed to carry them. Indeed, some planes have had to be turned away and sent to Tehran, which is hundreds of kilometres away.
These are the problems with which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, who is now in Iran, is wrestling. The focus of the international effort —without our ceasing to build up on the Turkish side— will increasingly have to be Iran and the problems that the hon. Lady has described. She referred to people sitting miserable in cars—some of them dying. That reflects completely other comments that I heard this morning.
On the political side, I cannot sensibly add to what I have said already. The objective that the hon. Lady heard voiced by the Kurdish leader is the one that was explained to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he met similar Kurdish leaders in London last week. That must be the right objective, and it can be achieved only by steady steps. I repeat that the first steps must involve efforts to prevent people from dying on the tops of mountains; the second must be to get people—immediately, if possible —into Turkey and Iran; the third must be to enable them to return to their homes. That will require not just the provision of aid but United Nations action that has not previously had to be taken in this form. I refer to the need to ensure that people may return home in safety and confidence.

39
The Government will take seriously the points that have been made during these exchanges not least those raised by the hon. Lady.
Mr. Speaker: I shall ensure that hon. Members who were not called to put questions on this statement are given some priority when we next return to the subject.

Question Time
4.42 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that, by comparison with the subject that we have just been discussing, this is a very small point.
When the Minister for the Arts was answering questions today he made a remark which, on the face of it —though I am sure it was not intended—could be misleading. On the subject of the London borough grant committee, he said that Labour and the Liberal Democrats had a majority. That is true, but the budget requires a two-thirds majority vote, and it is Conservative members who are blocking the resolution ——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot be responsible for adjudicating on the accuracy of answers that are given in the House. The hon. Gentleman must find another opportunity to raise this matter. It is not one for me.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 351) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Local Authorities Etc. (Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 397) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the National Health Service Trusts (Consultation before Establishment) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 358) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the National Health Service Training Authority (Abolition) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 327) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
Ordered,
That the Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 2/90, relating to management and control of export refunds, and European Community Documents Nos. 4549/91, relating to the development and future of the Common Agricultural Policy, and 5032/91 Add I to III, relating to the prices for agricultural products and related measures (1991–92), shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day

  Export and Investment Guarantees Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not see how there can be anything further to be said about the matter. As I have said already, it has nothing to do with me. I do not know whether what the Minister said was right or wrong.
  Mr. Hughes: It is a procedural point, Mr. Speaker. Such matters have often been raised with you. My understanding is that a point of order relating to questions may be taken immediately after Question Time.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that if something disorderly has occurred during Question Time, that is the point at which it should be raised. However, it is not disorderly to disagree with an answer.

New Clause 1

  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  "The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that ECGD's services to developing countries are effected in coordination with the services offered by all other government departments or agencies involved in assisting developing countries or in assisting British firms to supply goods or services to developing countries.'.—[Ms. Quin.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms. Joyce Quin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause introduces into the debate on this legislation an element that was not really covered at the Committee stage. We are concerned about how the ECGD's services will fit into the overall trade and aid arrangements between the United Kingdom and develop-ing countries. It has been pointed out to me that the equivalents of the ECGD in many developing countries are involved more closely in co-ordinating facilities for the promotion of trade and aid. A number of west European and other developed countries have state facilities to assist their industry to identify, and to develop involvement as technical partners in, sources of know-how and technology in projects in developing countries. Such projects often lead to opportunities for funding and for the supply of goods and services. There are such business development facilities in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, France, Finland, Ireland, Austria and Switzerland, as well as Japan and the United States of America. Business concluded via this system is very much in the national interest of the countries concerned and we believe that a similar approach by the United Kingdom would be in our national interest.
  It is unfortunate that the Bill, in its present form, does not contain a provision that would enable the Secretary of State to make arrangements to give such guarantees as appear to him to be in the national interest, even though the original Act—the Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978—does contain such a provision. For two reasons, the provisions of our new clause would be

  41
  very much in our national interest. They would certainly enable British industry to become involved at an early stage in business with developing countries. If British industry is not involved at an early stage, the way is open for other countries, and, because of their more co-ordinated structure, it is easier for them to become involved at an early stage.
  Such an arrangement would be in the interests of developing countries, so the system proposed in new clause I would improve our aid and development efforts. It is important for Britain to avoid losing out in trade with developing countries. Similar considerations also apply to our trading relations with eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and to the use of ECGD in that context as we appear to be losing out to other countries because of our lacklustre approach. However, as new clause 1 is about developing countries, I shall resist the temptation to say too much about eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, although I believe that I have made an important point.
  Using Indonesia as an example of a developing country, I shall quote part of an article which appeared in The Independent on Sunday on 31 March. It states:
  "Her Majesty's Treasury moves in mysterious ways, as the Government of Indonesia will testify. In 1989"
  our then Prime Minister
  "was touring the Far East, vigorously waving the flag and helping British companies pick up business in Jakarta.
  Because Indonesia is poor, the British Government lets it pay with low-interest loans called mixed credits, which are backed by the government export credit agency, ECGD.
  An umbrella arrangement for such deals was due to expire on 30 November last year, so when two telecommunications contracts and one for railway refurbishment, worth £89 million between them, came close to signature, the Department of Trade, the exporters and the embassy in Jakarta put pressure on the Indonesian government to sign by the deadline.
  It did, and then waited for the financing arrangements to be finalised—which would normally take about 10 days. It is still waiting. The exporters and their bankers are furious, for they see this delay, linked to the introduction of a new premium system, not only as potentially damaging to business in a fast-growing market, but also as a sign that the Treasury is yet again throwing spanners into the works of ECGD."
  That example bears out the worthwhile nature of new clause 1 which envisages a system in which such delays would not occur.
  I wonder whether the Minister has seen the interesting proposals by Mr. Andrew Brzozowski of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. He suggests a one-stop bureau, a British industries overseas projects development bureau, which would achieve the co-ordination for which we are asking and ensure that ECGD services were brought into a network that would operate efficiently for British industries in developing countries. I refer in particular to part of the paper by Mr. Brzozowski where he points out that a number of countries have one-stop project promotions offices run by multilateral aid organisations with national Government funding. There are no similar one-stop facilities in the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and Mr. Brzozowski in particular, feel that the Government should consider such an approach. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. Such a network would aim to bring together potential United Kingdom know-how and technical partners to joint ventures in developing countries. It would draw attention to the finances available, including grants, concessional finance, export
  42
  credits and commercial funding, and would provide a vehicle for assisting the development of a total United Kingdom response to major projects.
  The Minister may remember that in Committee we referred to the example of an exporter who was interested in establishing a telecommunications project in Kenya but was unable to get export credit assistance from the ECGD. The Minister subsequently sent me an unsatisfactory reply which did not give any hope that such facilities would be available to that exporter in future. If there were a co-ordinated system, as we are suggesting in new clause 1, the chance of that exporter getting ECGD assistance would be improved and he would be aware of other sources of assistance. For example, he would be referred automatically to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I understand that that would not be the case at present.
  Many of our major industries would be interested in the system proposed in new clause 1. For instance, companies in the Export Group for Construction Industries are involved in many large-scale projects in developing countries and are well aware of the value of ECGD services. They want those services to continue and to be efficiently and effectively organised in future.
  Perhaps I should make it clear that, although I am anxious that we benefit from project and trade opportunities in developing countries, nothing that I have said so far undermines our comments and the amendments that we tabled in Committee. We expressed concern about the scale of military exports and sought to ensure that any project in developing countries should comply with environmental safeguards. However, we believe strongly that an effective co-ordinated system would be a good way of organising future projects in developing countries.
  The Minister may say that the new clause goes rather wide of the Bill. That would be a fair comment, but we seek some reassurance on how the system will work in future. We know that there have been some moves to co-ordinate the export services of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office recently, but our aim, and Labour party policy, is to ensure that all export promotion interests, including the Government and other agencies working with developing countries, are properly co-ordinated. For that and all the other reasons I have given, we hope that new clause 1 will get a sympathetic response from the Government.
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am certainly sympathetic to the objectives that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) set out. However, I fear that I will disappoint her by saying that, although I am sympathetic to her objectives, I cannot be as sympathetic to new clause 1. Perhaps she recognises that the legal and practical effects of new clause 1 are rather unclear. It is not at all clear to me or to any rational reader how it would attain its objectives. Another problem is that the hon. Lady's remarks seem to be based on an assumption that ECGD support is always helpful to a developing country.
  In effect, ECGD support is another form of commercial loan. There is a real problem —although we wish that it did not exist—that when a country is unable to service its existing foreign debt, it does not seem helpful to add to its burden of indebtedness. Quite the opposite. The hon. Lady

  43
  used Kenya as an example. That country has a problem servicing its existing debt burden. In those circumstances, it is more appropriate to give aid in another form.
  Having said that, I assure the hon. Lady that we are conscious of the importance of co-ordinating the Whitehall machinery for aid and the activities of ECGD in respect of trade. Machinery exists for co-ordinating those activities with those of other Departments concerned with developing countries and third world development. We should not fall into the trap of confusing the role of the ECGD with that of the ODA. The ECGD's function is not to provide assistance to overseas countries, but to encourage British exports by providing services to industry here. We recognise that there is a need to co-ordinate ECGD's activities with those of the ODA and of the DTI and I assure the hon. Lady that machinery exists for that purpose.
  First, in respect of export projects assisted by the aid and trade provision, for which ECGD cover for the related commercial export credit is a normal pre-requisite, long-standing procedures exist which ensure that the interests of ECGD, the ODA and the DTI are effectively co-ordinated.
  Secondly, in respect of commercial export credits supported by the project group—I think that I am right to say that the hon. Lady referred broadly to commercial export credits—further machinery exists to ensure that the views of all interested Departments, which could include the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Treasury, are brought to bear in assessing the national interest case for giving cover.
  5 pm
  The hon. Lady will appreciate that national interest can encompass a wide range of factors—employment, security and diplomatic and trade factors. However, it can also include the developmental benefits to which she referred. A formal Whitehall committee of officials exists to co-ordinate the views of different Departments.
  I said that I was sympathetic to the objectives of new clause I, but the machinery for which it asks already exists. We would not wish to confuse the role of the ECGD with that of the ODA and we do not believe that it is helpful to add to the burden of debt of a country that already suffers severely from excessive debt. I cannot ask the House to accept the new clause, I urge hon. Members to reject it.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: The Minister's answer is much less impressive than it should be, because he has merely outlined precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). There is no co-ordination of the Government's activities. The Minister mentioned a range of Departments, all of which are dabbling and meddling in different respects with different functions and purposes. He said that it would be unkind and unfair to ask developing countries which already have a substantial burden of debt to incur even more. That is fine, but where does that leave an exporter who wishes to trade with Brazil, Mexico or Nigeria? My hon. Friend asks for systematic, publicly known and well co-ordinated arrangements to deal with precisely that issue.
  My hon. Friend alluded to a key issue which concerns us all, which is that on the question of military exports,
  44
  there is great confusion between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry when it issues export licences, the ECGD and other Departments that might be involved. That is of great significance. We have heard a major statement in which co-ordination was one of the hidden themes which underpinned the discussion on that statement. The Minister merely said that a range of public and semi-public agencies such as the banks and others are engaged in this issue, but offered no assurance that they are co-ordinated, which is the purpose of the new clause.
  Ms. Quin: The Minister said that he feared that his reply would disappoint me. I can at least say that he has been consistent, given his replies to the amendments that we tabled in Committee, where he was unwilling to accept the many excellent ideas that were suggested by my hon. Friends and I.
  I am grateful for the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) because it reinforced the points that I made. Those points were made properly and related to the position of developing countries as well as to the need for British industry to be involved in those countries as much as possible.
  I did not intend the new clause to increase the indebtedness or the debt burden of developing countries and I do not believe that it would do so. We merely sought to ensure that the ECGD is brought into an overall system of aid and trade assistance and that the machinery of government and the co-operation between the Government and other relevant agencies work smoothly and effectively. From the evidence that I have seen of the way in which many European countries do that, I believe that it is something we should at least consider in detail and decide whether we should alter the way in which we organise such matters. We believe that the interests of aid and those of British industry are not necessarily incompatible. Therefore, the two should work together as much as possible in pursuit of a variety of objectives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central referred to the debate on military exports and I referred to considerations of the environment, but those issues are not, in themselves, arguments against the co-ordinated system for which we ask. In many ways, they reinforce the request for such a system, because such considerations could be built into the system at an early stage. That would work in the long-term interests of us all.
  I hope that the Minister will at least be prepared to examine closely the proposals to which I referred from the Commonwealth Development Corporation—which have been around for some time—and discuss with that organisation how the work of his Department on exports and on relations with developing countries could fit into its concerns. The new clause was devised not in a vacuum, but in response to difficulties that we know exist. Despite what the Minister said, we do not believe that the mechanisms exist to ensure that if an exporter does not receive ECGD cover for a project that he has in mind, he is automatically referred to other agencies which could assist him. There seem to be gaps in the system and exporters do not get the information that they would like. The information may not be available in sufficient quantity at a regional or local level. As the Minister knows, we raised in committee the

  45
  question of the desirability of proper regionalised services linking ECGD and other export services and a later amendment refers to a regionalised network.
  We are aware of the gaps in the system which affect exporters and which can therefore lose valuable orders for this country and discourage exporters from trying to use the service in the future. We do not want a system that deters exports, but one that favours exports and their expansion in he future. Therefore, we do not apologise for raising this issue. We are disappointed by the Minister's response, but we shall not press the new clause to a Division.
  Question put and negatived.

New Clause 2

  POLITICAL RISK REINSURANCE
  '( )-(1)—The Secretary of States may make arrangements for insuring any person providing insurance with a view to facilitating, directly or indirectly, supplies by persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom of goods or services to persons carrying on business outside the United Kingdom against risks of losses resulting directly or indirectly from war, expropriation, restrictions on remittances and other similar events.
  (2) Arrangements under this section will be made and would last at least for three years from the date of coming into force of a scheme made under section 8 of this Act. After such a minimum period, the arrangements will be subject to an annual review.
  (3) References in subsection (1) above to a person carrying on business in the United Kingdom and to the insured include any company controlled directly or indirectly by him.'. —[Ms. Quin.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms. Quin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 16.
  Ms. Quin: The issues raised in new clause 2 and in the Government's amendment have emerged as the key concerns of exporters. The Government's approach to political risk reinsurance is the single most powerful reason why so many exporters distrust the Bill and distrust the Government's intentions for the future of the continuing ECGD and for the future of the insurance services group under a private owner.
  All hon. Members have been lobbied about political risk reinsurance. They have been lobbied by firms in their own constituencies, by individual firms, by large firms, which may sub-contract to many smaller firms, and by associations of firms, such as the British Exporters Association, the London chamber of commerce and the British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association.
  I received today a letter from the president of the BEAMA, from which I shall quote. The letter is important and shows vividly the reactions of industry to the Government's approach on political risk reinsurance. In the letter, Sir Robert Davidson says:
  "Industry has been concerned by the nature of this Bill right from the beginning. There is a real question mark over the willingness and ability of a private sector export insurance endeavour to provide the range and depth of cover after privatisation which exists at the moment through the Insurance Services Group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Whilst the Bill was in Committee, Members of
  46
  the House raised this point specifically, and tabled an amendment which gave legislative guarantees that the Government would retain an involvement with the insurance or reinsurance of political risk for a period of at least three years after privatisation; this amendment was agreed by the Committee. This seemed the very least that could be done to allay the fears of Britain's exporters.
  Yesterday the Government tabled an amendment which, if passed, would simply delete from the Bill the previous statement which guarantees this continued involvement. I find it extraordinary that the Government should choose to send this negative message to industry at a time of severe recession. Some £13 bn of the United Kingdom's £8 bn export business is currently underwritten by ECGD Cardiff, so uncertainty of the kind caused by this action has a potentially disastrous consequence for the confidence of Britain's exporters."
  Those are strong statements from BEAMA, and they have been reinforced by many other firms and by many other commercial associations while the Bill was in Committee and in the few days before Report. The Government are winning no friends in industry by their attitude.
  I am rather surprised to see so few Conservative Members in the Chamber at present given that it was a Conservative member of the Committee who tabled the original amendment. He received support from some of his colleagues, but unfortunately he did not receive support from the Government. I am surprised that the author of that amendment is not here, as he was a member of the Committee. Perhaps there is a good reason why he is not here to defend his proposal.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Lady has commented that few Conservative Members are present. Will she now turn round to see that even fewer Labour Members are present?
  Ms. Quin: If the hon. Gentleman looks across the Chamber, he will see that all Labour Members who were members of the Committee are present.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: And others.
  Ms. Quin: Indeed. However, some of those who seemed most to support the original amendment, which the Government now seek to overturn, are not here to defend their stance in Committee. I know that many Conservative Members were pleased with the original amendment, which was passed in Committee with strong support from the Opposition, so we are rather surprised that so few of them seem to be prepared to defend the amendment, which is under threat from their own Government. All the Conservative Members who are not Ministers to whom I have spoken seem to favour the original amendment because they know that it was popular with exporters and with British industry, and they know the real difficulties that British exporters face at present.
  The new clause is slightly stronger than the original amendment. However, to try to promote agreement throughout the House on the issue, it is not as strong as the amendment that we tabled in Committee in which we sought an open-ended Government commitment to provide political risk reinsurance facilities to the new privatised company. The new clause refers to reinsurance being available for three years and for it to be subject to an annual review after that. That goes some way towards meeting the Government's feelings on the issue. Given that the new clause fits in quite well with the original amendment, we hope that the Minister will accept it.

  47
  5.15 pm
  On reflection, it may be even better to set up a rolling programme. I know that exporters are interested in the idea of a rolling programme to allow reinsurance facilities to continue fairly smoothly. That would also allow reinsurance facilities to be reviewed, rightly and properly, by the Government of the day in the light of the circumstances.
  There is a clear difference of opinion between the Minister and almost the whole of British industry about whether it is likely that the private market will be able to take up the reinsurance business. The Government seem to feel that, after the magic period of three years, the private sector will have no difficulty in taking on the whole of the reinsurance facility that is presently provided by the Government. None the less, all exporters have told us that they fear that the private sector will not properly take up the facilities. Exporters are worried that at the end of three years they will be left high and dry. Will the Minister let us know a little about his discussions with exporters on the subject? Will he tell us whether any of them share the Government's optimism about the private market and reinsurance?
  What are the Minister's current feelings about the three-year period which is on offer by the Government? Does he expect the amount of reinsurance provided by the Government to reduce systematically over the three years, or does he expect it to remain at current levels and suddenly to be cut off at the end of three years? Many people are worried about that. The Committee accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and it commanded widespread support. It is disgraceful that the Government are trying to reverse that amendment today.
  There seems to be a difference of view between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury on the issue of political risk reinsurance. Will the Minister enlighten us on the discussions between himself and his colleagues in the Treasury? It has been widely reported that there is considerable wrangling between the two Departments over the thorny issue of reinsurance. We want to know what the current state of play is, and whether there is proper agreement between the two Departments or whether disagreements continue to prevail.
  Will the Minister tell us how much of a problem the lack of Government commitment to provide reinsurance is in the minds of the bidders for the ISG division of the ECGD? I imagine that all the bidders are anxious about the Government's commitment to provide political risk reinsurance. In Committee, I referred to the difference between the treatment of British exporters and the treatment of Dutch exporters if the Dutch company NCM were the successful bidder and if the British exporters with which it would deal via the privatised ISG did not have the access to reinsurance facilities that Dutch exporters dealing with the same company in Holland would have as a result of the Dutch Government's commitment. The Minister gave an astonishingly complacent reply—that there will always be differences in the export credit facilities offered by different countries. That will not tackle the problem of discrimination.
  Are the other bidders concerned about the Government's policy on reinsurance? I understand that they are all concerned that the Government's commitment will be phased out within three years, with no guarantee
  48
  thereafter. I should be surprised if they were not worried about the Government's intention to reverse the amendment agreed in Committee.
  The Minister may say that there are technical or legal difficulties with the amendment that was passed in Committee—I understand that he said something along those lines to exporters—and if so we need a firm commitment, and preferably something in the Bill, to ensure that exporters know that some political risk reinsurance will be available after the three-year period. It would not be satisfactory if the Minister said, "There are technical difficulties and in any case we will phase out political risk reinsurance after three years."
  The Government are optimistic that the private sector will take up the market, but, as far as I am aware, no one else is. The overwhelming majority of exporters who expressed their views to hon. Members highlighted that as their main concern. The Government's attitude is an acid test of their approach not only to exports but to our economic recovery generally.
  Mr. Thurnham: I did not serve on the Committee and, although I do not wish to delay the House, I have been asked by a large engineering company in my constituency, Beloit Walmsley, which makes papermaking machinery, to make representations. In addition, a large steel construction company in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), Watson's, has also expressed concerns.
  I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will comment briefly on political risk reinsurance for four countries—Iran, Russia and China, which are of interest to Beloit Walmsley, and Indonesia, which is of particular interest to Watson's as it is negotiating a large contract there. Beloit Walmsley has received inquiries from Russia and China and an inquiry about an order worth between £175 million and £200 million from Iran. It would be pleased if the Government were to regard that major business opportunity as a unique case, rather than leaving it while a general review of arrangements is undertaken.
  The inquiry is from the Karun Pulp and Paper company in Tehran, which is in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Given the developing relationship between Britain and Iran and the difficulties with Iraq and the fleeing Kurds, does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that we will have a more positive relationship with Iran? Adequate insurance for the inquiry would help to cement the relationship between Britain and Iran, to the benefit of both countries and particularly to employment in my constituency.
  My constituents have pressed me to say that that case should be regarded as unique and not subject to review so that Beloit Walmsley can further its negotiations with Karun Pulp and Paper with the support of the Government. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will comment particularly on the possibility of that contract being treated as a unique case with which the Government can help, and in general on inquiries from Russia, China and Indonesia.
  Mr. Cousins: The hon. Member for Bolton, North-West (Mr. Thurnham) went to the heart of the problem. The Government resemble one of the creatures in "The Adventures of Dr. Doolittle"—the Pushmi-pullyu, which tried to look the same at the front and the back and which faced in both directions. The hon. Gentleman gave a good

  49
  example of a Pushmi-pullyu at work. The face at the front, led by Ministers, is urging exporters to the Gulf to take on trading and commercial obligations with politically risky countries, but in the calm and comfort of Westminister the same Department is undoing provisions of the Bill that would offer exporters the assurance that they need—that they will be covered for their political risks. It is an extraordinary situation. The Government urge exporters to take on commercial obligations and do business with politically risky countries, but undermine the new clause and, by their amendment, negate the amendment that was moved in Committee by the coalition forces.
  The Minister must consider his position. We can all bandy around the fact that in Committee and in this debate Labour Members have quoted the CBI to support their case, but the point is serious: the CBI's mind is made up and it regards the amendment that was passed in Committee as essential. It regards the guarantees that were given to exporters to politically risky countries as fundamental to the conduct of sound business and the expansion of British exports. The statement that it issued made it perfectly clear that it believes that the honour and integrity of Ministers' comments are on the line. It reminded its members—this point was made many times by members of the Committee—of the assurances that were given by the then Secretary of State when he announced the privatisation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in December 1989. He was clear that political risk reinsurance would be guaranteed for three years. That direct and explicit undertaking was given to the House and to the commercial world. The Government amendment undoes the worth and value of that. By so doing, it signals a lack of commitment to underpin commercial exports to politically risky countries, which will do considerable damage to the honour and reputation of the Government and to British business men and women in their work in other countries.
  What will other countries make of this debate? What will they make of the assurances of a Government who try to undo the value of an undertaking that was given by a previous Secretary of State in December 1989?
  The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) successfully moved the amendment in Committee that the Government are now seeking to undo. He said that he hoped his hon. Friend the Minister would accept the amendment because it would constitute, to use his ringing phrase,
  "the Sainsbury guarantee".
  It is clear this afternoon that neither the Ridley guarantee given in December 1989 nor the Sainsbury guarantee, to which the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West drew attention when he moved his amendment, has been honoured. That is shameful and bad. It will go against the interests of British exporters at a time when they badly need Government assistance in seizing the opportunities that they now have in many politically risky situations round the world.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Sainsbury: I start by sending a positive message to British exporters and emphasising the importance that the Government attach to promoting British exports and providing support to British exporters.
  As I hope that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) recognises, it is necessary not just to say that we want to provide support, but to provide it sensibly,
  50
  practically and realistically. It is insufficient to say that words in a Bill are adequate because the intention behind them is good. Her new clause 2 would not help exporters although I realise that that is her intention. We must recognise that her proposal would have statutory force. Similarly, clause 4(2), which amendment No. 16 would delete, would not be as helpful as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) intended.
  The new clause and amendment deal with a complex aspect of export credit insurance. That may explain some of the misunderstandings about the national interest reinsurance facility that have arisen, and that, it is clear from our debate, regrettably still exist.
  It is important that the House should recognise that these complex arrangements deal with the insurance and reinsurance arrangements for less than one half of 1 per cent. of Britain's non-oil visible exports. As of now, only the insurance and reinsurance arrangements for less than that tiny percentage would be the subject of what we seek to define as political risk reinsurance.
  It may be helpful if I put the insurance arrangements for this small fraction of our exports in the context of the overall level of Government support for exporting. The promotion of British exports and the provision of support to exporters is an important part of the work of my Department. We are committed not just to maintaining that work but to constantly seeking ways to improve the service that we and other parts of Government provide to exporters.
  Most recently, on 14 March I announced the merging of the export divisions of the Department of Trade and Industry and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to form a new joint directorate, which will be responsible for the development of export promotion policy. It will improve the coherent and consistent delivery of export services. Exporters will now find that, whether they are seeking help from the regional office of the DTI or from a post overseas, the export promotion arms of both Departments will be operating under the name of Overseas Trade Services.
  Overseas Trade Services will deploy more than 2,000 staff worldwide, all of whom will be committed to providing a wide range of advice, information and assistance to British firms seeking business overseas. Their help will extend to every stage of the exporting process —for example, in finding an export representative, in attending promotions and fairs overseas, in going on overseas missions, in providing export intelligence services about export opportunities, and in export marketing research schemes to look at the opportunities for a particular market for a particular product. A whole range of services will be available from the Overseas Trade Services arms of the DTI and FCO to help exporters.
  The efforts of the DTI and FCO staff are supported by many others, most notably my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Like all other Ministers, he takes every opportunity to speak up for British goods and services and to promote British exports.
  At overseas posts it is not just the staff who are committed full time to working for Overseas Trade Services—the commercial staff—who are involved in helping exporters. Throughout the world in all our overseas posts the head of the mission regards it as an important part of his task to look for opportunities to help British exporters, as do all his staff. In Britain, in addition to those whose full-time job is working in Overseas Trade

  51
  Services, all the staff of the regional offices of the DTI regard helping exporters as part of their overall responsibility.
  In addition, several other Departments, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Employment, the Department of Transport, the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Defence, through its Defence Export Services Organisation, provide help to the industries with which they are involved. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I receive valuable advice from the British Overseas Trade Board and its network of area advisory groups, which bring in expert advice on export opportunities from no fewer than 180 senior business men with a great deal of experience.
  The support available to exporters through the ECGD's project group, which will remain in the public sector, is substantial.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I have been listening with great interest to everything that the Government and the Departments do to assist exporters and I congratulate them, but I am puzzled. If the political risk reinsurance is so insignificant as a percentage of our visible exports, why are the Confederation of British Industry and individual firms, as well as everybody who has written to me, kicking up such a fuss?
  Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend raises a good point. Despite all the assistance, there is a great deal of misunderstanding. The remarks of the hon. Members for Gateshead, East and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), who has drifted from where he was a moment ago but who is still in the House, show that that confusion still exists. I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that the manpower, time and resources committed to helping exporters are considerable. We are committed to continuing to provide that support as effectively as we possibly can.
  Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) asked the Minister to explain why everybody except the Minister regards this approach as sensible and why only the Minister is convinced of the rightness of his course of action. Given the intense debate in Committee and the press criticism of his action, has the Minister sat down and examined in his own mind whether he might be wrong?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is joining the gang of the confused, alongside the hon. Members for Gateshead, East and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central. It was only too evident, during the discussion in Committee and in correspondence that I have had with several people since, that misunderstanding remains about the reinsurance arrangements that the Government intend to provide for the new company after privatisation. Therefore, it is not only helpful but vital that I describe them in more detail. I again emphasise that we are talking about political risk reinsurance—the reinsur-ance arrangements for less than one half of 1 per cent. of the non-oil visible exports from the United Kingdom.
  Sir Robert McCrindle: Before my hon. Friend explains the rationale of his case in a little
  52
  more detail to those of us who fully confess to be mildly bewildered, perhaps he could explain one thing. If we are dealing with such a small percentage of British exports, does my hon. Friend accept that by seeking to nullify the effects of the amendment successfully moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) he risks sending the wrong message to the great majority of exporters? The amendment offered a relatively small concession and I believe that any attempt to nullify its effects would waste a great deal of the Government's valued reputation as an assistant of exporters without any great advantage.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The last person in the House to be confused on matters of insurance is my hon. Friend, as he is an acknowledged expert on the subject.
  I want to send a positive message to exporters, even those concerned with that small fraction of overall British exports. I want that message to be helpful, but if the Government accepted the new clause or the well-intentioned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West that would not be helpful and would not achieve the purpose that that amendment was designed to meet. As I develop my argument I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) will see that I am seeking to give reassurance in the most effective way.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The proportion of exports is not insignificant. We are not particularly concerned with those transnational companies that switch goods between Britain, France, Germany and Spain because that trade does not carry much political risk. I doubt whether we are that concerned about the import and export of gold and diamonds, as people can arrange to be paid without much delay. My guess is that our biggest concern is for those in the manufacturing industries, including engineering, when there may be some time between the dispatch of a consignment and receipt of payment. I suspect that the reassurance that the Minister will seek to give will be addressed to that group rather than to those who are not subject to a serious risk.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I believe that I shall give a positive reassurance on the issue to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
  The longer-term exporters are the exporters whose exports are covered by the project group of the ECGD. That part of the ECGD will continue as a Government Department and therefore there is no requirement for the political risk reinsurance, which is the subject of the new clause and the Government's amendment. The new clause and my amendment are addressed to the political risk reinsurance that will be provided for the Insurance Services Group, which covers short-term—up to 180 days —exports. They will be covered by the privatised organisation that will take over the work now done by the Insurance Services Group.
  After privatisation, the Insurance Services Group will be able to provide a more flexible and comprehensive service to its customers. It will enjoy the freedoms, but also be subject to the competitive pressures, that are the features of business in the private sector. The Government, through the continuing ECGD—I emphasise that it will continue to provide export credit insurance to long-term project exporters—will also provide to the new company that will take over the business of the Insurance Services

  53
  Group of the existing ECGD two different types of reinsurance to support and assist it in its transition into the private sector.
  The two different types of reinsurance have caused confusion and still seem to be causing confusion among Opposition Members.
  The first type of reinsurance will be ECGD provision of support to supplement the reinsurance that the new company will be securing in the private reinsurance market. It will cover both commercial and political risks. That temporary facility will be available for up to three years after privatisation. That type of reinsurance is not only normal but essential for an insurance company, which has to avoid the need for an unnecessarily large market capitalisation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar is well aware of that.
  In the run-up to the issue of the invitation to tender for the shortlist of likely bidders for the insurance services business, the Government's major priority has been to develop, with the private reinsurance market, a package of reinsurance support to be available to the privatised company immediately it begins operations. I am glad to say that the market has responded extremely positively to the new company's needs and I am confident that the vast bulk of the new company's reinsurance needs can he met by the private market immediately upon privatisation.
  The placing in the private market of the Insurance Services Group's portfolio of risks is probably a unique event in the market's experience. We are talking of the risks attaching to more than £13 billion of United Kingdom exports annually. By any measure, that is an enormous amount and it is a credit to the skill and flexibility of the market and to ECGD and its advisers that the capacity has been found to meet virtually the whole of that requirement. However, there could be a small shortfall and the Government intend to fill that through the continuing ECGD becoming, in effect, one of the reinsurers of the new ISG.
  5.45 pm
  I must make it clear that it is that "top-up" support that is transitional. It will be available to the company for up to three years after privatisation. Given the expected successful placing of the vast bulk of the company's requirements in the market even before it starts its operations, I am sure that the House will understand why the Government are confident that, once the market has familiarised itself with the new company and its management, it will be able to meet the company's full needs for quota and excess of loss reinsurance within those three years.
  The confusion between the second type of reinsurance and the first type that I have just described has given rise to some of the unnecessary worries that have been expressed. The second type of reinsurance is the "national interest" facility that I announced on Second Reading. The need for that arises because there are a few countries in which ECGD facilities are at present available, but where the management of ISG considered that to have offered the risks on those countries to the reinsurance market now could have prejudiced the market's response to the total book for business put to it. By definition, those are countries where the company and private market reinsurers are not at present happy with what they see as the political and commercial risks. Therefore, to avoid any sudden and sharp reduction in the facilities available to
  54
  our exporters in the immediate aftermath of privatisation, the Government will provide support to enable some cover to be given on exports to those markets.
  In order not to prejudice wider diplomatic and commercial sensitivities, I shall not specify precisely the markets concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) mentioned four markets—Iran, China, the USSR and Indonesia. It is likely that the possible business to which my hon. Friend referred would be project business—longer-term export business—in those markets. Cover is already available for Indonesia and China, but cover for the longer-term markets in the USSR and Iran is at present under review. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall ask ECGD to look urgently at the Beloit Walmsley case in Iran to which he referred. Meanwhile, the companies concerned might like to contact their regional office or ECGD contact.
  The countries that are regarded as requiring political risk reinsurance are few. Press speculation about the identity of those markets has been wide of the mark. The proportion of ISG business at present involving exports to those markets—not the proportion of total British exports—is still less than 2 per cent. of the total business insured in 1990–91. That is still a worthwhile amount of exports—about £300 million worth—but it is a small proportion of the total insurance book of ECGD and a fractional proportion of the total non-oil visible exports from Britain. Nevertheless, it still represents a valuable proportion of our exports. So although this is not a major facility, it is one of importance to some exporters.
  The intention is that this national interest cover should be delivered through the continuing ECGD giving 100 per cent. reinsurance to the privatised company. It could well be—I hope that it will be—that most of these national interest markets will become reinsurable in the private market so that the need for this facility will fall away. The likelihood of this is, though, rather less clear than it is for the top-up arrangements for the company's more general reinsurance requirement.
  It may help, at this point, if I say a little about the nature of the reinsurance market for credit insurance risks. This will, I hope, help to clarify the developing relationship between private reinsurers and the Government and explain some of the uncertainties. A key point is that this is a complex market and this complexity is compounded by the fact that it is a rapidly changing market.
  The ECGD has, therefore, quite properly used the services of a specialist broker. The placing of Insurance Services' more than £13 billion of risk has obviously been a challenging task. There have been some suggestions from some quarters that it would simply not be possible to place Insurance Services requirement in the market because of the amount and degree of political risk inherent in the portfolio. Despite statements which I have made to the House and in Committee, some doubts still seem to exist; indeed, they were echoed in some of this morning's newspapers.
  There are two important points to be made about the relationship between ECGD's Insurance Services and the reinsurance market. First, three quarters of Insurance Services' business is with the OECD markets; secondly, the ECGD is negotiating a package deal. Thus, for reinsurance purposes, non-OECD business is being packaged with the bulk of OECD business.
  I have already explained that these negotiations are meeting with considerable success. The market has already

  55
  indicated its readiness to accept the vast bulk of the new company's reinsurance arrangements. The balance will be supplied by ECGD joining the reinsurance group under the transitional top-up arrangement, while a small balance —just 2 per cent. of the total—will be dealt with under the quite separate national interest reinsurance facility.
  But that is today's picture. Every element in it is subject to change. It is necessary to understand that the reinsurance market is international; indeed, many non-United Kingdom players occupy a central place in it. The market already provides reinsurance to some of ECGD's counterparts in both the public and private sectors. However, meeting the reinsurance requirement for the Insurance Services Group will represent a step-change for the market but such rapid development is, as we all know from the changes which this Government have fostered through deregulating the financial markets in London, becoming a more common fact of life. Further changes will arise in future. The capacity and experience of the private reinsurance market is clearly expanding. The performance of Insurance Services as a new company will demonstrate its competence to the market. The economies of the importing countries and the political risks that the market perceives in them will change over time, as will the needs of British exporters.
  Ms. Quin: The Minister has said that the situation is changing and will continue to change. Given the difficulty with predicting exactly what will happen, and when, why have the Government fixed on this period of three years by when the facility to which the Government has alluded will be phased out? Why should the Government stick to this magical figure?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry that the hon. Lady is still confusing the two types of reinsurance. The three years refer to the top-up or quota reinsurance being provided by the ECGD joining the market, covering more than 90 per cent. of the total portfolio of Insurance Services Group. What we are examining now and separately—this goes for the new clause as well—is the balance, the 2 per cent. of Insurance Services group's portfolio which is not being offered to the market because of the perception of the political risk inherent in the countries involved.
  This has been a trail-blazing operation which reflects great credit on the skill and flexibility of ECGD and its advisers. In recent years there have also been changes in the make-up and direction of our exports and in the economies of many importing countries. All these factors bear crucially on the nature of the facilities which exporters will require from ECGD in the future. No one can predict with any certainty what the next changes will be, when they will occur and how they will alter credit insurance needs.
  The new subsection, which amendment No. 16 seeks to remove, could have the unfortunate effect of requiring the Secretary of State for a period of at least three years—the subsection mentions these three years as well as the other three relating to the quota top-up reinsurance—to provide political risk cover, short, medium or long-term, in respect of any proposition put to him—irrespective of its merits or the degree of risk involved. I am sure that the House will recognise that such an obligation would be extremely unreasonable. Neither the project group nor Insurance Services has ever had such a statutory obligation to provide cover regardless of risk. It would oblige the
  56
  Secretary of State to insure the sort of risks which were rather accurately described as long ago as 1949 by the then President of the Board of Trade, now Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, as unduly
  "hazardous or quite crazy".
  The subsection would expose the ECGD to a degree of financial risk that could not be in the interest of exporters.
  So, although I sympathise with the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West— intentions which led him to propose his amendment—I do not believe it possible to find appropriate words which would fulfil them to include in what will become an Act. On the one hand, there is the rigidity of requiring the Secretary of State to cover any risk regardless of the destination or of the nature of the exports involved, which might even be arms. On the other, it is impossible to specify the detail of the arrangements, referred to in the new clause and in the new subsection, which the Secretary of State would be required to arrive at. For instance, would they be arrangements at a stated premium, or with or without a letter of credit, or with a confirmed letter of credit? We cannot specify in the Bill what they would be.
  I do appreciate, however, that some exporters, together with the CBI and the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, are worried. I can assure hon. Members that the national interest facility for the second type of reinsurance that we have been discussing will be kept available after privatisation, and we shall keep the requirement for the facility under review. It would be the intention that, subject to its performing satisfactorily as an ECGD trading facility, it would continue for as long as the Government considered it essential to meet the reasonable needs of exporters.
  So we are faced with three reasons why the new clause and the subsection which I am seeking to remove would not help exporters in the manner in which they were intended to. First, it is not possible to define with the accuracy appropriate and necessary for inclusion in an Act what the arrangements should be. Secondly, even were it possible to come up with a satisfactory definition, all the wording that has been suggested would require the Secretary of State through ECGD to provide reinsurance for any such risk regardless of how bad a risk it was. I hope the House will recognise that it is unacceptable to remove entirely the exercise of discretion in these matters.
  Thirdly, in view of developments in the reinsurance market and the changing political and economic situations which lead to the need at any time for a country to be considered a particularly bad risk for the reinsurance market, it seems inappropriate to include a time limit. That is because Government-backed reinsurance may not be needed for that period and any time limit implies an arbitrary cut off point. That is far less appropriate than saying, as I have said, that the matter will be kept under review. I urge the House to reject the new clause and, on the basis of my assurances, to accept amendment No. 16.
  6 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I have listened carefully to the Minister's arguments, which seem to fall into three broad categories. First, he tried to argue that the Opposition do not have the judgment to understand the complexities of export credit insurance dealt with by the new clause and by clause 4(2). He said that they covered such a tiny percentage of British exporters that it did not

  57
  matter whether the new clause was accepted or clause 4(2) was deleted. He ran into some hostile flak from his own side when he tried to put that argument.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West): He encountered hostile fire.
  Mr. McAllion: He did, and it caught him.
  Even if a small percentage of our exporters were affected, that still accounts for a large number of British companies. Those companies depend on exports for profits and their workers' jobs depend on such exports.
  I was confused by the Minister's final argument against the new clause and the amendment which was carried in Committee. He said that it would be impossible to find appropriate words adequately to cover the matters that we should like to see in legislation. That is a strange notion, because if they were given the proper instructions civil servants could come up with words that would give effect to the arguments that we seek to substantiate.
  The Minister said that the amendment carried in Committee would have obliged the Government to give cover for any risk regardless of the financial consequences to the Treasury. Such detail can easily be dealt with by skilled civil servants. They could find phrases that would not allow the Government to be pinned in that corner and at the same time would provide the cover that many exporters seek from the Bill.
  The Minister ducked the major argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and by some of his own hon. Friends. That argument dealt with the range and depth of cover of political risk reinsurance that is provided in the Bill. Despite the Minster's reassurances, as he called them, he is sending out to British exporters the negative message that the Government are not prepared to back them in the way that other European Governments back companies that compete with ours. That is unfortunate.
  I was impressed by some Conservative interventions because the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), whose amendment was accepted in Committee, found it convenient not to be here for the debate on that amendment during which we heard that the Government intend to delete it from the Bill. It will seem strange to those outside who take an interest in our proceedings that some hon. Members have the courage of their convicitions in Committee where they take brave stands in defiance of the Whips and their party leadership but that their courage fails them on Report. It will be interesting to see how those hon. Members vote on the new clause.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: During the term of the last Labour Government—and there is not much prospect of having another one very soon—members of the Tribune group used to calculate how many of them could vote against the Government while still making sure that the Government won.
  Mr. McAllion: That is one the serious reasons why I did not renew my membership of the Tribune group, which I joined when I first came to the House. I am in favour of standing up for the things in which I believe in whatever way I find possible.
  We are dealing with areas that are generally described as less secure export markets. There has been much academic discussion about the ins and outs of whether a
  58
  Bill can technically express that concept, but no one has come to terms with substantive examples. Let us look at Iraq which, by any standard, must be considered a less secure export market. The Minister seems unsettled.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the United Nations embargo on exports to Iraq is still in force.
  Mr. McAllion: It is in force at the moment, but I should like to examine what has happened over the past 10 years in Iraq. The Minister will remember that over that time that country experienced the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war. In 1988, the Kurdish rebellion was suppressed by resort to chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein who then invaded Kuwait and suffered the consequences of the Gulf war. He is now being subjected to further Kurdish rebellions in Kurdish and southern Iraq, and we all know about the tragedies in the mountainous areas bordering Iran and Turkey.
  Throughout that tumultuous period Ministers continued to foster British trade with Saddam Hussein's regime. A succession of Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry traipsed through Baghdad in search of contracts for United Kingdom exporters, and in 1988 that culminated in the announcement of £340 million worth of export credits for trade with Iraq. It is not the purpose of the debate to question the morality of such behaviour by Ministers and the ECGD. However, it is relevant to note that Ministers and a Government-owned agency were underwriting British business in a very unsecure export market. Only the Government were prepared to take the kind of risks which we now know were involved in trade with Iraq.
  Since Ministers and a Government Department issued export credits to underwrite trade with Iraq, that country has suffered at the hands of the west perhaps the heaviest air bombardment ever inflicted on a modern state. It has been invaded and occupied by foreign troops, its cities and infrastructure have been devastated and its very survival is threatened by the famine and disease which have followed the war. The prospects for its economic recovery have been blighted by United Nations demands for reparations to Kuwait. Iraq is now engulfed in a bloody and dreadful civil war, the consequences of which we do not yet fully understand.
  The notion that private sector insurance would be prepared to underwrite business with a country such as Iraq is unbelievable. The Minister said that there is no problem, even with short-term insurance cover provided by the ISG being provided by the private sector in the long term, but that is not facing reality. Iraq may not be typical of the markets that we are debating in terms of the scale of the horrors to which Iraq has been subjected in the past 10 years, but it is typical of the nature of the risks in such markets.
  Political instability is found in many parts of the world, and the Government will have to come to terms with that if British exporters are to be assisted in trading with politically unstable countries. It is disingenuous of the Government to say that nothing can be written into the Bill so that the Government cannot be tied down to a prerequisite of the sort of cover that will have to be offered. We are told to leave it to the Government's judgment and that for politically high-risk markets cover will continue to be funded by the Government through the newly privatised ISG and that it will be 100 per cent. for an

  59
  undefined period. When we asked the Minister to list the countries and the markets for which the Government will give a commitment he dried up. It seems that it is not possible to tell the House or British exporters the markets for which the Government will provide 100 per cent. cover.
  Nor is the Minister prepared to say how long the Government will provide such cover. It will be provided until the Government decide that it can no longer be provided. The fact that the Minister will not make a commitment is unsatisfactory to hon. Members and to British exporters.
  Four markets were specified but the Minister's commitment was vague. He recommended to one hon. Member that he should tell the companies in his constituency to raise the matter with ECGD and write to the Minister concerned because he was not prepared to make the commitment that Ministers should make in dealing with such an important subject.
  Elsewhere in Europe, competitors of British exporters receive reinsurance back-up from their Governments that is denied to British exporters. The Government are determined not to make the same commitment to British exporters as is made elsewhere in Europe. The Minister must come to terms with the fact that the world is becoming more unstable. More markets are becoming subject to political unrest and instability and we do not know what the future may hold for some countries. If markets are uncertain, returns from investment in those markets are even more uncertain. British exporters need to know that their Government will support them if the worst comes to the worst and their contracts fall through. They need to know that if the Government of the country concerned refuse to honour the contracts in which they have invested, the Government will be prepared to back them up fully.
  So far in this debate, the Minister has made it clear that the Government are not prepared to give that support to British exporters because of the costs involved. It seems therefore that they are prepared to place British exporters at a disadvantage to others in Europe. That is unsatisfactory and disgraceful.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: As a member of the Standing Committee, I put my name to the amendment before the new clause was added to the Bill. Alas, when it was debated I was unable to be in the Committee. Had I been there, I would have voted for it, but as it happened, the amendment was passed anyway. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) did the House a service in moving the amendment. It has driven the Government to look at the clause anew, even if the new clause is flawed. We know that it is not perfect but most Back-Bench amendments are not perfectly drafted because we have fewer resources than the Government.
  Many exporters and organisations have written to hon. Members. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) quoted extracts from correspondence showing the concern about the apparent gap in cover. When those concerned read the Official Report of the debate and my hon. Friend the Minister's speech, they will be "greatly reassured", to coin the Minister's expression.
  I am not one to stand up in the House against a privatisation. The experience of most of us during the past
  60
  12 years has been that various industries and businesses previously run and owned by the Government are much better in the private sector. I believe that the transfer of this industry into the private sector will be beneficial. It is proving to be a special animal because it is privatisation with a couple of "buts"—it has a couple of legs of support from the Government, albeit temporarily, because of the special difficulties of reinsuring political risk. My hon. Friend the Minister's description of those legs should reassure exporters.
  Although the Opposition may poke fun at the way in which the amendment was made by Conservative Back Benchers against the wish of a Minister—that is part of the political fun—the Committee stage involves the serious business of trying to improve a Bill. Conservative Back Benchers have as much right to try to improve a Bill as any other Committee member, and it is perfectly reasonable for us to do so. However, the two legs that have appeared for support from ECGD to supplement commercial and political risks for up to three years—reinsurance being leg no. 1, and leg no. 2 being the national interest facility of further support for reinsurance by the Government—are a strong arrow in my hon. Friend the Minister's quiver in defending the clause and seeking, more importantly, to assure exporters that their position will be taken care of. Although we may have had a bit of fun over the amendment, there is a consensus on both sides of the House that exporters must be given maximum support.
  The Small Business Bureau, in which I have an interest, has stood up for small and medium-sized firms over the years. Larger firms do not need much help, but smaller and, more relevantly, medium-sized exporters are important. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned engineering firms, but many of those will be covered by long-term finance with ECGD and will be fully covered by that part of the service which is still run by the Government. Thousands of those exporters—small engineering firms—follow contracts given to large exporters such as GEC and bring thousands of minnows in their wake, and it is important that they be looked after.
  6.15 pm
  Sir Robert McCrindle: Like my hon. Friend, I am mainly concerned about the needs of small to medium-sized exporters and believe that the large ones can look after themselves. Like him, I think that they will be reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister's comments. Does he agree that, unfortunately, towards the end of my hon. Friend the Minister's speech, he said that, because it was impossible to find an appropriate form of words, he could not take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson)? Can my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), who has been in the House for the same time as I have, recall any occasion when a Minister has said that it was not possible to give a reassurance that he wished to give because his civil servants had been unable to evolve an appropriate form of wording? Would not it be better for my hon. Friend the Minister to try again, perhaps in another place?
  Mr. Grylls: My hon. Friend and I may have been in the House for the same length of time, but my memory is becoming worse and worse. I am sure that what he recalled must have happened on many occasions. Those words

  61
  have been spoken in the House and, as the Americans say, they are on the record and should be taken seriously. The two legs exist to back up what my hon. Friend the Minister said. He did not simply give a vague assurance that everything will be all right on the day, but offered the addition of those two top-up legs.
  I welcome the Minister's comments about general help to exporters and the bringing together of services under one arm. That is important one-stop shopping for medium and smaller firms, particularly outside London, so that they know where to go for services and to encourage them when they are seeking markets, agents and market research. I welcome that change, as it will provide flexibility for exporters.
  I welcome the privatisation, because of the ability of the private insurance sector to offer the cover that firms need when they trade under different circumstances throughout the world, and I believe that the British insurance market will respond to it. Perhaps they will not respond totally from day one. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) will know more about that than I do. It will take time for the insurance market, particularly the reinsurance market, to understand its market and know what it must develop to respond to the needs of all our exporters. That cannot be done immediately—the privatisation has not yet taken effect.
  I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, with the assurance that the two supporting legs have been offered and the market will develop and be able to provide in a much more flexible and general way than any Government service can do. It is difficult to be sure and know that, in a foolproof, belt and braces way, we have the system totally right. Having listened to the Minister's speech, my judgment, for what it is worth, is that the House would be wise to give him and the Government the benefit of the doubt, and accept that they have tried to meet the real worries rightly expressed in Committee. The House should believe that the proposals will fulfil the needs of most of our exporters. Some 0·5 per cent. of our exporters may not be satisfied, but certainly the generality of them will, in the long run, be better off through the transference to the private sector.
  Mr. Morgan: Since the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) rose to speak, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) has arrived in the Chamber. It was like the United States fifth cavalry arriving at the last minute to defend to the death the amendment that he successfully steered through Committee with the support of the Opposition. We noticed a sort of legislative eternal triangle between the Minister, the Parliamentary Private Secretary and the successful rebel Back Bencher going into action straightaway. The hon. Member may have been successfully anaesthetised by a dart between the shoulders in the meantime. Perhaps before this debate ends he will say what his intentions are.
  Before the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, and possibly you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, arrived in the Chamber, the Minister said that he sympathised with the aims of the successful amendment tabled in an act of rebellion in Committee and supported by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) also referred to that fact. It seems odd, therefore, that the Minister voted against the amendment in Committee but now, at least, agrees with its purpose.
  62
  The Minister said that there was an unfortunate lack of words in the English language with which to express the intentions of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West and his colleagues, some of whom are ranged here—and that was despite the vast resources of the Department of Trade and Industry. Personally—and I am probably speaking for 90 per cent. of hon. Members—I believe that when a Minister makes such a statement, he is not to be believed. The lack which he says means that intention cannot be transferred into legislative reality is a lack that exists in the Minister's mind, not in Chambers dictionary.
  Will the Minister try replacing the word "shall" with the word "may" in line 1 of the amendment of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West? He suggests that the amendment, which is contained in the Bill and would be wiped out by Government amendment No. 16, would cause problems because it would imply that, without any payment of premium, everyone would have a right of access to full political risk insurance against every form of earthquake in an earthquake zone, revolution in a revolution zone, and failure to remit in a country with foreign exchange difficulties. That is nonsense because no one is suggesting a premium-free service—it would obviously contain appropriate premiums. The Minister's suggestion that the amendment of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West implied the ultimate exporter's free lunch, with a premium-free form of insurance or reinsurance, is the ultimate in weasel words.
  We all listened carefully to the Minister's brief, which was evidently carefully prepared for him and from which he did not depart except when hon. Members made interventions, for the obvious reason that he must convey the message clearly. It was a damage limitation exercise, attempting to give some reassurance to exporters. He will be aware that, in spite of his efforts, the overwhelming impression given and the message that has got through to a typical, middle-sized, common or garden, British backbone exporter is that the No Turning Back group has hijacked the Department of Trade and Industry—not in the person of the Minister, but in the persons of the previous and present Secretaries of State—and has decided that what British industry needs, whether when exporting or manufacturing goods for use in this country, is another dose of the great cold shower of 1979–81. The group believes that if 20 per cent. of companies go out of business, as they did between 1979 and 1981, it will probably be a good thing because they were not efficient, otherwise they would have survived. It believes that a bit more of the cold shower in relation to export assistance in the form of insurance and reinsurance will be healthy because it will take out the softies who cannot live within the No Turning Back group's concept of a true free market world.
  That is the message that exporters have received, why they have been writing to hon. Members and why the Government have attempted to produce the sort of retrospective reinsurance to meet some of the aims of the amendment successfully tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West. That is why we, on behalf of exporters in this country, still maintain that the proper way for the Government to act would be to retain political reinsurance as a generalised, but not premium-free, right for common-or-garden exporters, whether involved on the

  63
  project side or in short-term insurance requirements, until we see what other countries are also disarming themselves of the right to provide political insurance.
  This country needs more exporters. Not all markets are stable—those in eastern Europe are rapidly changing their characters. The Minister said that the very fact of change is an argument against generalised political risk reinsurance. We say that it is a strong reason for providing it because otherwise British exporters will continue in their sad pattern—compared to Japanese or German exporters —of being exporters to small, back-street operations instead of high street ones. In order to get into the high streets, a company must have confidence when the market opens up, otherwise it will be the seventh or eighth exporter in the list, export only at boom times and never really become established.
  From where we stand, Britain stands and Britain's balance of payments deficit stands, the idea that this country can do without political risk reinsurance during the next five or six years unless all other countries in the world give it up in legislation to be passed tomorrow or within the next five years is absolute nonsense. It would be a complete dereliction of duty by the House were it even to consider doing that—in spite of the Minister's weasel words.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: I apologise to the Chair, the House and my hon. Friend the Minister for arriving late. I expected that the Opposition Benches would be crammed with keen and eager Members who would pursue new clause 1 excessively, as they did in Committee. I thought that I might just about be in time for the start of the debate on new clause 2.
  In Committee, I offered my hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity of accepting the amendment and thought that I might go down in fame and glory as being the originator of the Sainsbury amendment. Unfortunately, I gather from an excellent, quick briefing from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) that the Minister gave some firm assurances and expressed sympathy with the aims that we were seeking to pursue. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) put his finger on the crucial point—although many of the other European countries with which we compete are moving towards privatising the short-term business, they all automatically assume that the political risk markets will be supported by their Governments. It seems essential that, as long as that belief prevails among our competitors, the British Government must support British industry and not place our companies at a disadvantage.
  I entered the Chamber in time to hear some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), who knows so much about small and medium businesses. It seems that a particular sector of concern is those niche players with special products—the smaller companies going into difficult markets. Indeed, they are pathfinders in those markets in terms of other contracts that may ensue. As the amendment which was accepted in Committee was geared to sending a signal to British industry that the Government were behind it, there is a genuine belief within British business that the Government will maintain the reinsurance facility, although it will be under review. That is reasonable
  64
  provided that the Government can guarantee that the facility will continue for as long as it is needed and not only as long as the Treasury feels that it can afford it.
  6.30 pm
  Perhaps the Treasury is at the heart of the problem. Perhaps that is why we are being approached by industry. The Treasury produced various memoranda that subsequently appeared in the public arena, and evidence was provided for the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The attitude or mentality of the Treasury was entirely clear. I am not speaking of the Treasury now because this has been a long-standing Treasury view. British industry has always been somewhat jaundiced—I think rightly—about the rather dead hand of the Treasury in industrial matters. It tends to adopt a narrow, blinkered and short-term approach that is concentrated on the bottom line.
  For some years the Treasury has been saying that the reinsurance business and export credit insurance are costly exercises because a good deal of money is being lost. Although the political risk market in short-term business is a tiny part of the sector, British industry has still felt that the Treasury would like to pull out from it.
  I do not know what some would-be buyers have said to my hon. Friend the Minister. I read the newspapers, however, and as my right hon. and hon. Friends will know, the general flavour of press reports over the weekend was that at least some potential buyers are looking rather more uncertainly at purchases if there is not the guarantee of reinsurance in political risk areas. I have been told that the reinsurance industry does not believe that within three years it will be able to pick up all the pieces.
  It is right to have an ongoing review because some political risk areas may become better risks than others which seemed at one stage to be quite good but which deteriorated. That is all right provided that there is a firm guarantee. That is all that I was seeking to provide for in introducing the amendment which was carried in Committee by my hon. Friends, with the help of Opposition Members.
  I am nine-tenths reassured by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister and so I shall not grieve if the terms of my amendment are removed from the Bill. I merely ask my hon. Friend to pause for one moment. It is to be assumed that the Government will carry the new clause and so remove the terms of my amendment, and as I am not a lawyer I must bow to the legal opinion that is offered to the Government. It may be, however, that the Bill will embrace many countries in which the political climate is such that we would never wish to engage in reinsurance facilities. If it is stated that the Secretary of State shall make arrangements, it seems that he will have to act in any market in which an exporter wishes to do business. In education legislation there is often a broad-brush approach—I have not seen this in any Department of Trade and Industry legislation—with details being left to subsequent regulations. It is stated that the Secretary of State shall make arrangements as appropriate. If that approach is adopted and it is considered that it is not appropriate to embrace countries such as Libya, the Secretary of State will not have to make the arrangements. If he wants to make arrangements for other countries as appropriate, so be it.
  If the new clause is agreed to, my hon. Friend the Minister might like to think about including words such as

  65
  "the Secretary of State shall make arrangements as appropriate … for a minimum of three years." If such words were adopted, British industry would be reassured by the Government and would have greater self-confidence. It would feel that the Government were behind it. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider placing some such words in the Bill. However, I accept the generous way in which he has expressed sympathy for the intent behind my amendment.
  Mr. Den Dover: I, too, have been reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister. I ask, however, that the other place gives consideration to changing "shall" to "may". In that sense, I fully support the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). If the new clause is accepted and the subsection is deleted, I hope that those in another place will give careful consideration to the issues involved. We must ensure that firms, especially small and medium-sized undertakings, have some support while the whole of the Export Credits Guarantee Department is privatised.
  Mr. Michael: We have had an interesting debate during which Tory Members' concerns and worries have been made manifest, even though they have been expressed in half-hearted and, in some instances, almost sycophantic terms. I am pleased to be able to welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) belatedly to the debate. I do not understand why he thought that we, the Opposition, would drag out the debate to cover his late arrival. I hope that he will be rather more convincing when he casts his vote at the end of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West said that he will not grieve if the amendment which we accepted in Committee is removed from the Bill. That is all very well, but it is clear that exporters will be less half-hearted and will grieve. It is clear also that considerable reassurance is needed for exporters and that that is not to be made available in the Bill.
  Dr. Hampson: It is unfair to suggest that I expressed myself as baldly as that. I said that I would not grieve in the light of the expression of intent to deliver what exporters are wanting from my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Mr. Michael: I take it that the hon. Gentleman will, in effect, support the amendment which he proposed and which Opposition Members supported in Committee when the House divides so that the small percentage of dissatisfaction that he says he still retains is thereby assuaged.
  It is interesting that several Conservative Members seemed during the debate to awaken for the first time to the dangers that are inherent in this pointless piece of privatisation. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) asked several questions. I recommend that he reads the reports of the proceedings in Committee with some care. The Opposition pressed the Minister, as did exporters and the CBI, yet it appears that the Minister takes the view that he is the only person who is in step. He has said that the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East probably involve long-term projects. What if they do not? Why not give the reassurance which was sought in Committee and which has been requested this evening?
  The question that should be at the forefront of our minds is how we can protect, encourage and reassure our
  66
  exporters. I must tell Conservative Members who are new to these discussions that the lack of justification for the Bill was exposed in Committee, along with the lack of reassurance that has been forthcoming from the Minister.
  The Insurance Services Group within the Exports Credit Guarantee Department has received universal praise for the efficient and effective way in which it undertakes its work. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) said that he was puzzled that the Minister seemed to be standing on his own. He asked why everyone seemed to disagree with his hon. Friend. The answer is that the Minister has it wrong. He has again sought to diminish the importance of the insurance services element within the Department's work overall. He told us that it is only about 2 per cent. of the overall business. I suggest that a reasonable piece of advice to the Government is that they should look after each 1 or 2 per cent. more effectively than at present so that the 100 per cent. with which they have dealt so disastrously over the past few years may look after itself more successfully. In other words, the Government should give more effective support, encouragement and reassurance to exporters so that we can move out of the dire situation in which the Government have put us.
  The Minister sought to persuade us that he wishes to give a positive message to exporters. Given the way in which he has dealt with matters that have arisen during our consideration of the Bill, the only way in which he could give a positive message to exporters would be to resign from his present position. He told us that he must consider the words in the amendment, but hon. Members on both sides of the House have made it clear that that is not true. He could perfectly well have recognised the fears and promised to introduce an amendment worded to meet the fears of exporters. He spoke of the support that the Department is giving to British exporters, but his speech about his activities more or less rearranged the deckchairs on the Department of Trade and Industry as if it were some latter-day Titanic. It was irrelevant to the debate.
  Before this privatisation measure was introduced, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I met the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It became clear in our discussion that there was no justification for the measure. However, throughout the Committee and again today, we have sought to improve the measure and to suggest constructive changes.
  The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) urged the Minister to listen and reassure exporters, but he said that he wanted as much privatisation as possible. I argue that the Government went too far in privatising the water industry and it is difficult to find anyone who wants this privatisation or believes that it will help in any way. Today, or, failing that, in the later stages of the Bill, we need reassurance from the Government.
  The Committee accepted an amendment which gave legislative guarantees that the Government would retain an involvement with the insurance or reinsurance of political risk for at least three years after privatisation. At the conclusion of this short debate, I remind the House of the words of the British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association, which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). It said:
  "This seemed the very least that could be done to allay the fears of British exporters."

  67
  It complained that the timing of the Government's amendment had left little room for manoeuvre. In other words, the attempt to remove the guarantee from the Bill was sprung on the House too late for elements in industry to gear themselves up to object. BEAMA complained:
  "uncertainty of the kind caused by this action has a potentially disastrous consequence for the confidence of Britain's exporters."
  Those are serious words. I draw attention to the way in which the same objection was expressed by the Confederation of British Industry:
  "CBI Members continue to doubt the Government's future commitment to provide political risk insurance or reinsurance for short term exports to 'difficult' markets following the transfer of ECGD's Insurance Services business to the private sector."
  Again, we have references to insecurity and mistrust and doubt of the Government from elements of the industry. After our experience in Committee, that seems justified.
  The nature of the doubt of people in the export industry is clear. We could get rid of the doubt by accepting new clause 2. It would not only provide for the three years after privatisation but ensure that the new company would value, consult and work with exporters on whom we depend. Our new clause originally said:
  "The Secretary of State shall consult with the relevant trade and exporting associations to determine whether those arrangements should be continued for a further year and, if it is considered equitable in the national interest that those arrangements should be continued for a further year, they shall be so extended."
  We address the interests of exporters and the national interest in a way that the Minister does not.
  We have had a debate in which doubts about the Government's intentions have been expressed clearly. We shall set aside the temptation to press new clause 2 in order to seek the greatest consensus in the Chamber by voting on Government amendment No. 16 at a later stage. We set a test for Conservative Back-Bench Members who have expressed concern during this short debate. If any Conservative Member cares about exports and the fears expressed in the export industry, he or she will vote with us in the Lobby to retain the amendment agreed in Committee.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Sainsbury: With the leave of the House, may I say that I shall not detain the House long because I set out the position at some length earlier. The hon. Gentleman referred to doubt. If the new clause or the amendment tabled with the best of intentions by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) were accepted, the doubt would be increased, for the reasons that I set out.
  I fear that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—is that right?
  Mr. Michael: Uncharacteristically, the Minister has got one thing right—the name of my constituency.
  Mr. Sainsbury: How nice to be congratulated, even so obliquely.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) did not listen to what was said. The drawback of the amendment is clear. The arrangements are not specified. Every piece of business involving exports to wherever and whatever the nature of the goods to be
  68
  insured would have to be accepted. That would be a foolish measure to impose on the Secretary of State. Certainly it would not help exporters. It would increase doubt.
  The best way to reassure our exporters, whom we seek to support in every possible way, is to say, as I have already said, that the national interest facility will continue to be available after privatisation. We shall keep the requirement for the facility under review. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West asked us to keep it for as long as it was needed. Subject to it performing satisfactorily as an ECGD trading facility, we intend to retain it for as long as the Government consider it essential to meet the reasonable needs of exporters.
  Ms. Quin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION WITH EXPORTS OF GOODS AND SERVICES
  Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 21 at end insert—
  '(3A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that arrangements made under this section are in general no worse in terms of both scope and cost in comparison with those available to persons carrying on business in other OECD countries.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 7, in clause 8, page 5, line 31, at end insert—
  '(5A) Any arrangements made under a scheme under this section shall in general be no worse in terms of both scope and cost in comparison with those available to persons carrying on business in other OECD countries.'.
  Mr. Michael: The amendment would require the Export Credits Guarantee Department to provide export support facilities to United Kingdom exporters at a level and cost equal to or better than the facilities available to overseas competitors. The Secretary of State would have the responsibility for ensuring that that was the case. Would Conservative Members speak or vote against that simple principle? The amendment is intended to establish a level playing field for United Kingdom exporters. Clearly, it would be useful for United Kingdom exporters to be able to tackle the Government if, in their view, the Government failed at any time to provide export support equivalent to that which their rivals were receiving from their Governments or, arguably, from anyone else, although real export support can come only from Governments because they are the only entities likely to subsidise exports.
  The Government frequently use the phrase "level playing field", but they usually mean that they intend to tilt the balance against someone in our society. In this case, the measure tilts the playing field against British exporters. The amendment seeks to restore some fairness to British exporters within the legislation.
  Amendment No. 7 follows a similar approach. It says that arrangements should be made which are no worse in scope and cost in comparison with those available to persons carrying on business in other OECD countries. Exporters, especially with a current export turnover of less than £1 million, are becoming increasingly worried that privatisation of the Insurance Services Group will result in

  69
  large premium increases. That is not a new point. It was made in Committee and we have strong evidence from exporting companies of the nature of their fear. They fear that high premiums will place them at a competitive disadvantage with their European Community counter-parts, which will continue to have the benefit of direct support from their Governments.
  The privatised company will not be required, as ISG is, to operate on a break-even basis, because profits to shareholders will be the primary motive of its owners. During the passage of the Water Bill through Parliament, we were continually reassured that any private company established as a result of the Government's action would behave in an uncharacteristic manner and would not be interested in the profit motive of its owners. We now know the truth of that matter. The Opposition, not the Government, had it right.
  Additionally, the company will be subject to increased costs in the areas of taxation, including VAT, interest on borrowings, Treasury management, reassurance, on payment of dividends to the providers of capital, and on payment for professional and technical services, including taxation advice. All those costs will need to be met through increased premium income from exporters.
  We fear that ISG may also incur higher salary costs, although that may be offset by lower staff numbers. The increased costs may be balanced by an increase in interest earned on cash surpluses and investments outside the Consolidated Fund. Reinsurance costs may be balanced by reinsurance benefits. However the new company will require additional professional and technical services, such as taxation advice.
  The ISG will also have to recruit new skills into the management teams, such as reinsurance, Treasury management, company secretarial and taxation capabilities. The company will need to remain profitable after bearing all those additional costs. That is the degree to which the playing field is being tilted against exporters by the change that is being introduced.
  I remind the House that the Kemp review into the operation of the department made great play of the requirement for a level playing field between official and private export credit insurers in the European Community —the perceived advantages enjoyed by the official credit insurers should be removed and complete parity should be introduced.
  The level playing field argument is being pushed by private sector insurers, such as Namur, the Belgian insurer, whose case is before the European Court of Justice, and which is claiming that the European Commission has been dilatory in relation to the first non-life insurance directive, which currently exempts official credit insurers and Trade Indemnity, the current department's major rival in the United Kingdom.
  However, in that report Mr. Kemp recognised:
  "the arguments about a level playing-field do not all run in one direction. The state insurers generally provide a much wider scope of cover than do those in the private sector, many of which focus on a fairly narrow area of specialisation in which they are confident of operating profitably. The state agencies, on the other hand, have a responsibility to support national exports generally and a constitutional duty to treat all applicants equally. For these reasons, they regularly have to provide cover for risks or to types of clients that the private sector would reject as not commercially interesting. Advantages such as freedom from corporation tax enjoyed by the official agencies could be seen as no more than reasonable compensation for the more onerous duties laid upon them. As
  70
  a matter of fact there is no evidence that the official agencies are regularly and significantly undercutting the private companies in prices at the present time."
  I draw attention to the words:
  "have a responsibility to support national exports generally and a constitutional duty to treat all applicants equally."
  Is that not something that we in the House would wish to continue following the privatisation of this part of the Export Credits Guarantee Department?
  The amendment is concerned with the fact that privatisation will mean that there will not be a level playing field on which United Kingdom exporters can compete with other EC exporters. The ECGD is curtailing its support for short-term exports at a time when none of the department's major EC competitors is moving that far. All of the United Kingdom's major EC competitors are retaining, at the very least, their reinsurance back-up for private or quasi-private export credit insurers. Exporters in many EC countries will therefore continue to have the benefit of direct support from their Governments and United Kingdom exporters will be at a competitive disadvantage, as even the proposed limited United Kingdom Government support, by means of reinsurance and national interest support, will cease three years after privatisation.
  Our plea, in these two amendments, is to play fair by British exporters and to allow them to be supported in the same way as our competitors in Europe will support their exporters. We plead with the Minister to accept these amendments and not to press ahead with his declared intention in Committee to place our exporters at a competitive disadvantage.
  Mr. Sainsbury: To hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) speak one would think that the Government provided no support to exporters. I hope that he was listening to what I said and that he appreciates that a considerable body of support is provided.
  I was somewhat amused, in view of the hon. Gentleman's protestations about the importance that he and presumably his party attach to this issue, that at one moment during his eloquent address there was not one single member of his party on the Benches behind him. Now he has been reinforced—effectively, I am sure—by the presence of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). However, I would fear for British industry if that were a reflection of the Opposition's interest in these issues.
  The amendments that the hon. Gentleman has placed before us would mean that the ECGD would not only be required to give medium or long-term coverage to any country for any project where another OECD country was willing to offer cover for a project, but that the facility to the new company would have to be provided irrespective of the cost and degree of financial risk. In effect, the ECGD would have to give cover on terms as good as those offered by any of the other 23 OECD countries.
  As I am sure that the House will be aware, most member countries of the OECD, for a variety of reasons, want to be especially helpful in making export credit available to certain other countries. Their desire to be especially helpful to those countries with which they have traditional close links may show in the extent to which they make cover available in the first place, or in the terms under which it is offered, or both. It would not be sensible

  71
  to require ECGD to match every competitor in every market all the time. Certainly, no one else does that at present or is ever likely to do it.
  Nevertheless, it has been a longstanding policy of successive Administrations that where ECGD is willing to offer cover, it should match the length of credit available from other official agencies when United Kingdom exporters are competing for a specific project. That is an example of the sort of support that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth overlooks, because under the fixed rate export finance arrangements —which, interestingly, were introduced in 1972 by the then Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, who, as some of my hon. Friends will recall, was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe)—the ECGD is able to support United Kingdom banks in the provision of export finance to overseas buyers of capital goods and projects sold on credit terms of two years or more in accordance with the terms specified in the international consensus. In practice, that means that the ECGD offers similar terms to other export credit agencies.
  Meanwhile, the ECGD has introduced a portfolio management system and changes in the way that it calculates premium rates for project business. In future, rates should better reflect the quality of risk. Premium rates will fall for the better-quality risk, while they will rise for the worst risks.
  Looking further ahead, increasing consideration is being given to the general agreement on tariffs and trade regulations, which require that premium rates for export credit insurance should cover the cost of administration and claims.
  Only last Friday the OECD export credit group welcomed a paper which has been prepared by the ECGD on that subject. It is now clear that the campaign to eliminate subsidies from premium rates charged by official credit insurers is firmly on the agenda. The expectation must be that we shall be increasing pressure to that end, and that progress will be made steadily to reduce and eliminate subsidies.
  In the past, I have no doubt that risks have not been sufficiently differentiated in premium terms and the changes now being introduced will mean that there will be increases—some large—in the riskiest markets. However, ECGD has found that exporters would prefer that some cover is available rather than no cover and price will assist availability.
  I stress that premium rates are not being increased to recoup the ECGD's past losses. Perhaps the increases to which I referred should be put into perspective. If we take the ECGD's current average premium rate for project exports—long-term exports—of 5 per cent., a premium increase of up to 15 per cent. would add only three quarters of 1 per cent. to the export price. Other cost increases—increases in the cost of wages and raw materials, for instance—are therefore likely to be much more significant, especially if the long manufacturing delivery period associated with such exports is taken into account.
  The drafting of amendment No. 7 shows the same lack of precision as that of amendment No. 3. It would not be realistic, for short-term business any more than for
  72
  long-term business, to compare the terms and conditions on which cover is made available between the various schemes offering short-term cover.
  I believe that the competitive pressures that result from privatisation—which is opposed so strongly by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—will ensure that the exporter is offered a steadily improving service, and that the company will offer a wider range of facilities, on terms that are attractive to its customers; that includes prices. The amendments are neither sensible nor practicable, and I urge the House to reject them.
  7 pm
  Mr. Michael: The Minister said that it is "neither sensible nor practicable" to make arrangements that are, in general, no worse in terms of both scope and cost than those available to persons carrying on business in other OECD countries. What an admission of failure that is. I note that during his speech few Conservative Members were present. [Interruption.] Welcome back to school. What those Conservative Members have in common is that not one was listening to the Minister's speech. I am glad to note that they are, at least, listening to mine.
  Characteristically, the Minister chose to ignore the case that has been made out to him—to ignore the interests of exporters, and to answer a different debate from the one that we had instigated. I did not say that his Department gave no support to exporters; what I do say is that the Government and the Minister give them inadequate support, and that the Bill will diminish that support. The Government are failing to give our exporters the support that our competitors are giving theirs. It is for that that the Minister stands condemned tonight.
  We shall seek to withdraw our amendment tonight, because it—and amendment No. 7—will be pursued in another place. We shall, however, proceed to a vote on Government amendment No. 16, and it will be interesting to see whether any Conservative Back Benchers vote with the Opposition to seek to protect the interests of exporters in the United Kingdom.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

  PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS I TO 3
  Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 188.

  Division No. 108]

  [7.03 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baldry, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Allason, Rupert

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amos, Alan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ashby, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Atkinson, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  73

  Bowis, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hayward, Robert

  Brazier, Julian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bright, Graham

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hill, James

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Holt, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Butler, Chris

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Cash, William

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Irvine, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Janman, Tim

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Jessel, Toby

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Couchman, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cran, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

  Knox, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Latham, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Devlin, Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dicks, Terry

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lord, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fallon, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Favell, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Madel, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mans, Keith

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Marland, Paul

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Marlow, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Fry, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Iain

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gregory, Conal

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Ground, Patrick

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mudd, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hannam, John

  Needham, Richard

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

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  74

  Norris, Steve

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Steen, Anthony

  Page, Richard

  Stern, Michael

  Paice, James

  Stevens, Lewis

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Summerson, Hugo

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Portillo, Michael

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Price, Sir David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Thorne, Neil

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tredinnick, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Trippier, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Trotter, Neville

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walden, George

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Ward, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watts, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shelton, Sir William

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wilshire, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Yeo, Tim

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Speed, Keith

  Speller, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Squire, Robin

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Anderson, Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Harry

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cryer, Bob

  Bellotti, David

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Benton, Joseph

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blair, Tony

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blunkett, David

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

  Boyes, Roland

  Dewar, Donald

  Bradley, Keith

  Dixon, Don

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Buckley, George J.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Caborn, Richard

  Eadie, Alexander

  Callaghan, Jim

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  75

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michael, Alun

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Flannery, Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flynn, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fraser, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fyte, Maria

  Mullin, Chris

  Galbraith, Sam

  Murphy, Paul

  Galloway, George

  Nellist, Dave

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  O'Brien, William

  George, Bruce

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Parry, Robert

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Patchett, Terry

  Gould, Bryan

  Pendry, Tom

  Graham, Thomas

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Prescott, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Grocott, Bruce

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hardy, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Randall, Stuart

  Henderson, Doug

  Redmond, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Richardson, Jo

  Home Robertson, John

  Robertson, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rogers, Allan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rooney, Terence

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ingram, Adam

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Janner, Greville

  Short, Clare

  Lambie, David

  Sillars, Jim

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Leighton, Ron

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Soley, Clive

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stott, Roger

  McAllion, John

  Strang, Gavin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McCartney, Ian

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Wallace, James

  McFall, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McKelvey, William

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wilson, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Winnick, David

  Madden, Max

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Worthington, Tony

  Marek, Dr John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Maxton, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Meacher, Michael

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Meale, Alan

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6

  COMMITMENT LIMITS
  Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 30, leave out from 'at' to end of line 33 and insert
  76
  'intervals determined from time to time by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury and in accordance with principles so determined.'
  During the Standing Committee discussion of clause 6, it was proposed that the word "may" should be deleted and replaced with the word "shall." That was proposed as an amendment at several places in the Bill. In the debate the point was made that the Secretary of State has to determine principles for the conversion of foreign currency commitments into special drawing rights if he is to meet his other obligations under clauses 6 and 7. I agreed in Committee to consider the amendment further. The wording now proposed makes it clear that the Secretary of State is required to lay down principles for the conversion of foreign currency commitments into SDRs. He will do this whenever necessary and with Treasury agreement.
  In Committee interest was expressed in the principles that the Secretary of State might be called upon to determine under subsection (5)(e). The principles usually relate to mechanical operations that may be subject to change over time and for which it is therefore difficult to make statutory provision. Perhaps I could give two examples. The first would be deciding the precise rate to be used for converting individual foreign currency into SDRs. The closing rate for the last day of the quarter, as shown in the Financial Times, is used. The second example would be how to convert currencies for which no SDR conversion rate is quoted in the Financial Times—say, Australian and Hong Kong dollars. The current practice is to convert them into United States dollars by taking the average of the buying and selling rates, as quoted in the Financial Times, and converting it into the United States dollar equivalent. Because of the need to deal with unusual situations, such as those involving Hong Kong and Australian dollars, it would be inappropriate that the precise conversion mechanisam should be spelled out in the statute. That would be unhelpfully inflexible. We have encountered this point on earlier amendments.
  This is a minor technical change. I hope that the hon. Lady is listening when I say that we are grateful to the Opposition for drawing attention to this shortcoming in the text of the Bill. I have pleasure in presenting the amendment to the House.
  Ms. Quin: We are grateful to the Minister for taking into account the points that we made in Committee and for his proposal to amend the Bill accordingly. Obviously, we shall not oppose the amendment. However, I should like to ask the Minister for some information. He referred to the principles that govern the conduct of the Secretary of State and the Treasury in dealing with the provisions of this part of the Bill. Will there be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the principles, especially if they change?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The amendment with which we shall next deal concerns the reporting arrangements. This is the sort of issue that could well be covered in the annual reports if the principles applying to the same sort of currency conversion should change.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

  RETURNS
  Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 4, line 43, at beginning insert
  'The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report on the discharge of his functions under sections Ito 5 of this Act. (1A)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 19.
  Mr. Sainsbury: During consideration of amendments Nos. 93 and 111 on 19 February in the Standing Committee, the view was expressed that there should be a statutory requirement on the Government to lay the ECGD's annual report and trading accounts before Parliament. During our discussions I drew attention to the high level of reporting to Parliament to which the ECGD, as a Government trading organisation, is committed. Already, annual trading accounts which are statutorily required under exchequer and audit legislation are laid before Parliament, as are annual estimates and appropriation accounts. Of course, the report of the Department of Trade and Industry itself, which, from this year, replaces the public expenditure White Paper, also refers to the work of the ECGD. Then there are the reports to Parliament, under clause 7, on ECGD commitments against statutory ceilings.
  However, I recognise the merits of supplementing the existing reporting requirements with a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to submit an annaul report. In Committee, I undertook to consider the feasibility of finding the right words for such a provision. The purpose of the amendment is to put into effect the wishes expressed by members on both sides of the Committee. It requires the Secretary of State to submit to Parliament an annual report on the discharge of his functions under clauses 1 to 5.
  Amendment No. 19 is consequential. It places on the Secretary of State a statutory duty to produce a report. Although final decisions on the precise form and content of the new statutory report have not yet been taken, my basic intention is that the existing annual report—there is no statutory responsibility to table the existing report, but it has been placed in the Library—should represent the starting point for the new statutory report. Changes will be necessary to reflect the ECGD's changed role after the privatisation of the Insurance Services Group, and, indeed, with the new powers conferred by the Bill, particularly those provided for in clause 3.
  The annual report—the one which we do not have statutory responsibility to table but which is placed in the Library—covers various topics. These include a review of the year's activities of the various groups and divisions, detailed reports and accounts of trading operations, a brief report of the non-trading operations—the public expenditure programmes operated by the ECGD, such as the fixed rate export finance scheme, to which I referred earlier—and developments within international forums, such as the OECD and the European Community's policy co-ordination group.
  As new activities permitted by the Bill come on stream, provisions will need to be added to cover financial management activities authorised under clause 3—bond issues, cross-currency and interest-rate swaps, which were referred to during the Committee stage—and services that
  78
  might be provided by the ECGD for a fee, as authorised by clause 5. In addition, it may be possible for the annual report to contain an expanded section on the non-trading operations of the new ECGD, possibly building in elements currently contained in the public expenditure report of the Department of Trade and Industry. The report might contain also a summary of returns made under clause 7 of commitments logged against the statutory ceiling. It is my intention also that the separate annual report required in relation to investment insurance activities should be subsumed into the new report.
  I hope that the House will accept these amendments, which reflect the wishes expressed in Committee. They will further improve the already quite extensive reporting arrangements for the ECGD.
  Ms. Quin: These amendments are not controversial. They go a little way towards meeting some of the concerns that we expressed in Committee. Parliamentary accountability is a theme that we raised several times during the course of the debate. Since the legislation as a whole is controversial, we are concerned to ensure that the ECGD, in its new form, will be properly scrutinised by Parliament, just as we are concerned that Parliament should have some involvement in how the privatised company—the new ISG —operates. We welcome the extra commitment that these amendments represent.
  The Minister did not say anything about the timing of the presentation of the report and the returns. Of course, the Bill provides that they should be made as soon as practicable after 31 March each year. I should like the Minister to confirm that that is the situation. In Committee he said that in the first year it would be difficult to meet the deadline of 31 March but that the Government's aim in subsequent years would be to present the report and the returns very shortly after that date. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a clear commitment on the matter.
  We take very seriously the issue of parliamentary accountability. We shall certainly want the maximum information on the operation of the continuing ECGD. It is well known—we have highlighted the issue already this evening—that exporters are very concerned about how the continuing ECGD and the privatised company will operate. Especially in the early days, we shall want to scrutinise very closely the practical implications of these changes for exporters. For that reason, the information given to Parliament will be very important. We shall need to be in a position to debate the information, having had access to it in good time.
  Mr. Cousins: I do not want to detain the House unduly, but it would be churlish not to welcome the Minister's remarks and his commitment to use the annual report as an important source of information to the business community and to members of the public who are interested. This is something that many of us on the Standing Committee suggested. We welcome the proposal to deploy the annual report to some degree as a means of engaging in the continuing debate about the direction of the remaining activities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. To that end, following the Minister's suggestions as to what the annual report might contain, can he tell us whether it will contain an area-by-area analysis? By that I mean areas of the world. The annual report for 1986–87 contains an interesting breakdown of

  79
  area-by-area exposure in different country groups. I hope that that helpful feature will continue to appear in annual reports.
  The Minister mentioned some changes that he proposed to make in the work of ECGD in regard to the assurances he gave in our previous debate. Can he assure us that the annual report will rehearse and repeat the way in which those undertakings are borne out in practice, and that any intention to review the continuation of political reinsurance on a national interest basis, as the Minister said might happen, will be flagged up clearly in the annual report so that there will be plenty of time to consider its implications?
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Sainsbury: On the timing of the report, as the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said, it will be as soon as practicable after 31 March. As I said in Committee, those words mean exactly what they say. After the first report, which obviously carries certain difficulties, it is our intention to meet that deadline or improve on it. If we did not do so, and if there were any unreasonable delay, because those words will be on the statute book, a Secretary of State could be got at for failing to discharge his statutory responsibilities. That is the value of including those words in the statute.
  Issues such as area-by-area coverage, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), could certainly be included in the annual report and could even be expanded. He referred to national interest reinsurance. There are commercial and diplomatic reasons which I explained earlier for not listing the countries for which reinsurance is required, particularly as that could be damaging to the interests of exporters to those countries. We take it as a primary purpose of the report that nothing in it should do anything other than help, and certainly should not in any way hinder, British exporters. With that proviso, we shall seek to make the report as full as is reasonably possible.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 19, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'A return' and insert 'Reports and returns prepared".—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Clause 8

  SCHEME OF TRANSFER
  Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
  '(4A) A scheme under this section shall contain no provision which may force any person to cease to be employed in the service of the state.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 23, in page 5, line 35, at end insert—
  '(8) No civil servant will be transferred to the new organisation until such time as they have given their consent, in writing, for such a transfer to the Permanent Secretary.'.
  No. 9, in clause 9, page 6, line 7, at end add—
  '(c) he shall be allowed, on his request, to re-enter the service of the state within two years of the commencement of his employment by a transferee.'.
  No. 26, in clause 9, page 6, line 7, at end add—
  80
  `(4) No member of the executive, administrative and support staff shall transfer unless he or she has previously consented to do so in writing.'.
  Mr. Michael: These amendments raise issues concern-ing people who are now in public service and who are worthy of respect as civil servants. Despite what the Government appear to intend, they are not chattels to be despatched into the private sector with disdain and lack of consideration.
  Amendment No. 4 addresses the fact that staff in the Insurance Services Group fear that so few of them will volunteer to join the privatised company that, to ensure its viability, management will try to compel them to transfer to it. One understanding of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 is that any employees occupying ISG posts at the time of the transfer to the purchaser must transfer to the privatised company. Even if the employment terms offered by the purchaser are, as the Government have promised, broadly comparable to current civil service terms, there are advantages to civil service employment that are unlikely to be replicated in the private sector. Not only is a fully index-linked pension scheme unlikely to be offered, but the security of employment in a large, nation-wide staffing pool cannot be available in a private company and that entails an increased potential for redundancy and a reduction in promotion and personal development prospects.
  The amendment is intended to prevent any member of ECGD being compelled to join the new ISG insurance company or being made compulsorily redundant under the terms of the scheme established to convert it into a Government-owned company.
  Amendment No. 23 addresses what many see as a disregard of the reasons for which people enter the civil service. Many of them chose to make a career in that sector and have given years of dedicated service to it. That should be respected. I am gravely disappointed by answers that I have received from Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, and particularly from the Minister responsible for the civil service, about protecting staff who wish to remain in public service. The amendment would ensure that proper consideration and respect is given to civil servants when they decide whether to join the new company.
  Amendment No. 26 also emphasises the importance of choice. I should have hoped that all right hon. and hon. Members would enthusiastically support that.
  Amendment No. 9 would allow an employee to
  "re-enter the service of the state within two years of the commencement of his employment by a transferee".
  That change would make it possible for all staff currently in the ECGD who join the new ISG insurance company to return, if they wish, to the civil service at any time up to two years after they start work in the new company. It is not open-ended; it is time-limited and it is reasonable. It would mean that staff who, perhaps for domestic reasons such as children at school or a spouse at work in Cardiff, have no choice but to join the new company would have the right, for a limited period, to rejoin the civil service. That might be when the children have left school or their spouse is able to find a new job elsewhere. The amendment would guarantee a return not specifically to the ECGD, but in general to public service.
  There has been disappointment at the failure of Ministers to respect and protect the position of civil

  81
  servants, whose choice to remain in public service should be protected by the House. In recent years, the Government have sought to undermine public service and to discredit it publicly just as they have sought to discredit local government service. That is both sad and wrong. It is greatly to the credit of civil servants generally that so many of them continue to display such dedication and integrity in their work. It is greatly to the credit of the civil servants to whom I refer that the Insurance Services Group is so highly respected. Without exception, those who have made representations to us during the passage of the Bill have paid tribute to its efficiency and effectiveness. The tributes have come from employers in the private sector and those involved in our export industry. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will join the Opposition in protecting, and respecting, those who have chosen to make a career in the public service.
  Mr. Morgan: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said about our attempts to beef up the protection of the staff affected by clauses 8 and 9 and to strengthen the rights given to employees under the scheme of transfer and the regulations in clause 9. My hon. Friend put his finger on the button when he said that there was something Orwellian about the Government's attitude to the public sector. It is a matter of "public bad, private good". They do not analyse the particular circumstances or consider the people involved because they have a straightforward ideological belief.
  As Members of Parliament for Cardiff, we meet the real people involved. One cannot tell those civil servants who have been involved—perhaps on a life-time career basis —and dedicated to their work, some nonsense about the public sector being bad and the private sector good. It does not fit in with reality.
  Our constituents who are ECGD staff generally fall into three broad categories. The junior staff have generalised skills in administrative, clerical, financial and personnel work and can transfer to other Departments without too much difficulty because there is not much difference between administrative or clerical work in the ECGD and in other Departments. There are other civil service Departments in Cardiff, Newport and elsewhere to which they can transfer—the Business Statistics Office, the Welsh Office, Companies House and the Inland Revenue. They employ thousands of people and junior staff may get jobs there when they are trawled under the civil service transfer procedures. We are anxious to enable people with such generalised skills to be given the time that they might need to make their choice.
  The most senior category of people have highly specialised skills, but they nevertheless think of themselves primarily as civil servants. They may have joined the service at 16 or 18 years of age and may have gone through 10 promotions to reach the position of great responsibility that they now hold in the ECGD. They are probably 50 years of age or over and are beginning to think of themselves as life-time career civil servants. They might not find it very attractive to transfer, because within seven, eight or nine years they will draw their civil service pensions. Their functions are highly specialised and we should consider whether it is fair to push them into the private sector company when they have little time in their life-time careers to adjust to the idea of being employed by Trade Indemnity or Assicutazioni Generali. When they are
  82
  asked at the golf club or down the pub, "What do you do for a living?", they have always said that they were civil servants. Suddenly, they would have to say that they worked for Assicutazioni Generali, and they do not want that. They are too old to be able to absorb such a change. They are used to the idea of being able to draw a civil service pension at 60 or, if they have worked for 40 years, a little sooner—as is common these days—and they do not want to transfer.
  What should we do for such people, because they are very important to the organisation? If they have been with ECGD for 20 years or more, they are probably in responsible positions and without them the business will be in difficulties. If they feel that they are being treated like chattels, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, the transfer scheme will be heading for big trouble.
  The middle group of people are those who have worked for perhaps 10 years for ECGD and have what might be called executive responsibilities. Their jobs are also fairly specialised and we have attempted to cover them by saying that they may be willing to give Assicutazioni Generali from Trieste a reasonable shot if it is the successful bidder. They may be willing to join the company, but it might not suit them and they might find that Triestino ways of working are not those of Cardiff or of Britain. If, after two years, they decide that it is no good, they may beg, "Can I please be given a chance at the Inland Revenue, Companies House or BSO or a transfer to London?" They may have come from London 11 or 12 years ago. What can we do for them? Apparently, the legislation will mean that they are forced to go and have no choice. If they do not like it, they are out and must accept redundancy. They will be treated like the GCHQ trade unionists and, if they hold out, they will receive redundancy, a bit of a premium and a goodbye. Is that the attitude that the Government want to communicate to civil servants who, the Government say, provide an A1 service to exporters through their commitment to the job and to advancing technology in the job?
  We ask the Government to take seriously our attempts to strengthen the rights of employees, because that will help them to make the employees believe that the Government really care about them and that the Government realise that it is people-oriented business. It is all about computers and a lot of valuable people. If the people walk out of the job, the transfer scheme will not work and British exports will suffer.
  7.45 pm
  I look forward to hearing from the Minister, not the usual waffle about the amendment not achieving the objectives or the wording not achieving what the Opposition hope, but genuine respect for the people for whom we are legislating. If he does not show that respect, the Government do not deserve to have the Bill passed or to be able to effect a successful transfer to the privatised sector.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I can say straightaway that we recognise and pay tribute—as I did on several occasions in Committee—to the skill, commitment and calibre of the work force of ECGD. I am sure that everyone will recognise that the calibre of the staff is one of the most —if not the most—important aspects of any business. In the world of financial services, which we are talking about,

  83
  it is especially important and we have heard many tributes paid to the quality of ECGD staff. I hope that we shall be committed to providing a first-class service to British exporters after privatization—or an even better service than is provided now.
  We must consider the amendments against the background not only of our commmitment to the staff and our respect for their calibre and what they have given to the business, but of the importance that we attach to their commitment to the success of the Insurance Services Group. We shall expect the buyer of the new company to show an immense commitment to the success of the ISG and, as a purchaser, he will expect a similar commitment from his staff. Against that background, the amendments would not be helpful.
  Amendments Nos. 4, 23 and 26 would limit the staff to be transferred to the new company to volunteers only. It is possible that the number of volunteers will not accord with the business requirements of that company. The ECGD privatisation is unlike some others in that only about half of the total organisation—measured by the number of staff—will be privatised. That gives much more scope than is normal for meeting the preferences of individual members of staff. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) stated as long ago as 18 December 1989 that all ECGD staff would be asked to express a preference on whether to join the new company and that
  "ECGD will use its best endeavours to meet their wishes where these are consistent with the business needs of ECGD and the company."—[Official Report, 18 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 23.]
  I hope that the Opposition will accept that that is perfectly reasonable.
  They have spoken about the need to support British exporters and that is one aspect of that need. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs—reiterated what my right hon. Friend said. The terms and conditions on offer to the staff will be one factor that the Government will take into account in assessing the bids. I should expect the terms and conditions on offer to staff transferring to the new company to be at least as good as those that they enjoy now.
  It is not unreasonable to expect staff to transfer on a permanent basis, because it is only by doing so that they would demonstrate the commitment to the business that we would expect the purchaser of the Insurance Services Group to show. Anyone who considers the position will recognise that if staff were able to walk out of the business at any time in the first two years for whatever reason—or for almost no reason—an effective organisation could not be built up. It would make the business's position extremely uncertain and would damage the interests of exporters.
  Amendment No. 9 suggests that everyone who transferred to the new company would do so on secondment. That would be an unsatisfactory position not only for the company and for exporters but for the Government. One would not know how many people—if any—would want to come back. One would hope that
  84
  there would be none. Such a possibility would be uncertain and unsettling. If many people exercised that option. it would be difficult to find them employment.
  Both hon. Members for the various bits of Cardiff—the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—implied that people would want to stay in Cardiff. However, there are not many jobs available at any one time in the civil service in Cardiff.
  Mr. Morgan: To cope with what I anticipated would be the Minister's reaction, I split the staff into three categories. Much of what the Minister has said does not apply to one third of ECGD staff who have common skills which could be used in other branches of the public service. They include administrative, personnel, establish-ment and finance staff who are not specialists in insurance.
  The second group of whom the Minister has failed to take note, although I tried to draw his attention to them, is the one quarter of staff at ECGD-ISG in Cardiff, half of whom are in executive and administrative positions, who joined ECGD in London. They were persuaded to move to Cardiff in the public interest on civil service terms. They might say, perfectly reasonably, "I accepted a move down to Cardiff in 1978 because I was persuaded that it was good for me, as a civil servant, to move in the public interest and on public service terms. If I am not going to work for the ECGD as a civil servant I would rather move back to London. I was never completely sold on the idea of coming to Cardiff, so given that it will not be a civil service ECGD, I may want to move back to London because that is where my mother, brother and sister live." Does not the Minister accept that it is perfectly reasonable for people to feel like that? They were willing to accept a move in the public interest, but they are not willing to accept the move if they are not civil servants.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Having heard the hon. Members for Cardiff, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth speak at some length on the merits of Cardiff, I am astonished to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, West suggest that there could be even one person who would want to leave Cardiff for anywhere else. However, it is a possibility. Equally, staff might not wish to leave the town in which they work and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with that position. It can create considerable difficulties in finding alternative employment. The objective will be to avoid a position in which redundancy may occur. However, amendment No. 9 would make that more rather than less likely. We would not want to have to make people redundant because its provisions were included in the Bill.
  I appreciate the understandable concern that the hon. Members for Cardiff, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth have shown for their constituents, but they must take into account the reasonable needs of the staff and the Government's assurance, which I repeat, that the terms and conditions on offer to staff will be one factor which we shall consider when assessing the bids because we are aware of the value and importance of the staff, and of their skills and the importance that is attached to them by exporters. In the light of that, I urge the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth not to press the amendments. They would not be in the overall interests of the staff, of exporters or of the continuing, privatised Insurance Services Group.
  Mr. Michael: I assure the Minister that on occasion, family reasons may lead people to leave even the delights of Cardiff. That is a rare occurrence and is not to the detriment of our fair city.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I represent some parts of Cardiff, but two Cardiff constituencies are represented by Conservative Members. We sincerely hope that that will be the case for only a short time longer. I point out to the House the failure of those hon. Members to be present for this debate. Clearly, they are not here to support the Minister, but neither are they here to support the interests of their constituents, as we seek to do. As both of them are in the House at present, it is sad that they are not in the Chamber to participate in or at least to listen to our debate. I express some surprise at that.
  The Minister quoted the words of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) with surprising approval. It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's words that people's wishes come second to the interests of the business. That may be the way in which the Minister seeks to run the public service, but I do not think that it is right. I believe that one has to take people with one in attempting to build a good service.
  The Minister referred to the importance of the calibre of staff. I am glad to know that the Minister has heard as many tributes as we have heard to the calibre of the staff now working for ISG. The Minister has confessed that he wants them to transfer even if it is against their will. That would take away choice. It is clear from the Minister's response that the Government are against choice. The motivation of staff is important, as is their ability. Clearly, the Government do not have the confidence in their own proposals to depend on persuasion to take people into the privatised company which they wish to create. What happened to the free market? It is not free for individuals who have given their lives to the public service; it is not free for employees.
  I referred earlier to a question that I put to the Minister of State, Privy Council Office. I asked him whether he would make training opportunities and career development opportunities available to people within the Insurance Services Group so that they could, if they wished, fit themselves for jobs in the public sector and thus stay within the civil service. I did not receive a positive answer. We have had today a far from positive answer to the interests and concerns of people within the civil service whose careers and prospects may be damaged by this measure, which should carry a Government health warning.
  At this stage, we will ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I am certain that our proposals will be discussed further in another place and I am also certain that civil servants, not only within ISG but generally, will have heard the Minister's sad message in this short debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Cousins: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
  '(4A) 'A scheme under this section shall make provision for the functions so transferred to be made available through services in each standard planning region of the United Kingdom.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 27, in clause 10, page 6, line 39, at end insert—
  '(c) transfer any shares held on behalf of the Crown in any vehicle company unless he has made provision for that vehicle company or its subsidiaries to continue to operate through a regional network which assures an office in each standard planning region of the United Kingdom.'.
  Mr. Cousins: The amendments are an attempt to secure within the privatised part of ECGD, which is the main subject of the Bill, a strong and continuing commitment to a regional organisation. When the need to retain a regional organisation in the project group was discussed in Committee, the Minister spoke about the continuation of regional offices in the part of ECGD that is to be privatised. He said:
  "After privatisation the regional offices will be the responsibility of the new owner of the insurance services group. They will be committed to providing a first-class service to the customers. I suspect that their judgment will be, as it has been, that the regional office network is an important part of providing that first-class service. We cannot, however, commit them by writing it into the Bill, as they will not be part of the ECGD, what regional offices they will have. I am convinced that they will wish to keep a close contact with their customers, because that is a good way to do business."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 7 February 1991; c. 96.]
  The Minister emphasised the importance of retaining regional offices for the short-term work of the ECGD. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the network of regional offices remains after privatisation.
  8 pm
  The present network of regional offices, of which there are nine, does not extend to each of the standard planning regions of Britain, but the amendments would ensure that there was a regional office in each standard planning region, alongside the regional offices of the Department of Trade and Industry.
  It is obvious from the annual reports of the ECGD and from elsewhere that answering the flood of inquiries is an important part of the work of regional offices. The Minister referred to the importance of people being able to seek advice and information from regional offices. The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), who has considerable knowledge of small and medium-sized business, mentioned the importance of a one-stop shop where advice on export credit insurance could be given. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the network of face-to-face contacts in regional offices continues.
  Regional offices deal with many inquiries, most of which relate to the short-term work of the ECGD, the part which will be privatised. That emphasises the importance of the amendments. About 250,000 inquiries are dealt with by those nine regional offices, which are important because they offer advice on export credit to small and medium enterprises that may be exporting for the first time.
  The Government increased the grant of the Northern Development Company by almost 30 per cent. this year. That company made it perfectly clear to me that when it sets up a trade mission or receives an inquiry from a small company it is essential that it can immediately refer that business to an easily accessible regional office where face-to-face advice can be offered. That is particularly important in regions of Britain where, for historical reasons, small and medium-sized enterprise is not playing

  87
  the part in the economy of those regions that it should. The growth of those small and medium-sized enterprises does not depend solely on the passing of the amendments, but were they passed it would be an important assurance to those enterprises that a one-stop shop in their region will be able to deal with their inquiries and that they will be able to continue to rely on somebody being at the end of a telephone or in an office to deal with their complicated problems.
  In Committee, the Minister said that he expected those arrangements to continue. Surely it is not too much to ask him to accept the amendments and ensure, rather than expect, that that network of regional offices survives.
  Ms. Quin: Before the Minister replies, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendments.
  Earlier, we spoke of sending signals to exporters, but we must consider the importance of sending signals to the regions on the privatisation of ISG. In Committee, we tabled an amendment to ensure that the regional network of offices continues. The Minister said that that was not necessary because the project business of the ECGD is best located in London and that exporters had become used to that system. We said that we were asking not for a huge organisation to be set up in the regions but for the contact point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) suggested.
  The amendments refer to the Insurance Services Group, which shortly will be privatised. We are concerned about the likely service to the regions. We should be interested to hear whether the Minister intends to ensure that the services of the privatised ISG are properly available in all parts of the United Kingdom.
  The principle of regionalisation and regional access to services figures highly in the Labour party's policy review document. The regionalisation of the services of the Department of Trade and Industry, including the ECGD, and the availability of regional services, even if they are in the private sector, are important to our chances of economic success. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the Opposition Members who considered the Bill in Committee represent constituencies outside the south-east and therefore understand the importance of regionalised services.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Labour does not have many Members of Parliament in the south-east.
  Ms. Quin: That is true, but we have an even spread throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, with representation from Scotland, Wales and the north, and we were all concerned to ensure a balanced regional structure.
  Despite the good efforts of the ISG, the present balance of regional offices is not satisfactory. We pointed out in Committee that there are not offices in every standard planning region, which is why the amendments, and the amendment that we moved in Committee, specifically refer to the standard planning regions. We are worried that the spread of offices could be worse after privatisation, which is why we believe that this point is so important.
  I am sure that the Minister is aware that export activity is not evenly spread throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that he has seen the recent survey of exporters carried out by Barclays bank—it appears in its second quarterly survey—which shows a variety of export activity from one region to another. In particular, some of the older
  88
  industrial regions, which are dear to the hearts of many of us on this side who served in Committee, do not have as much export activity as other regions. In the survey the export ratio of the old, industrial, English regions of the north, the north-west, Yorkshire, Humberside and the east and west midlands was below average. I wonder whether the Minister has examined those figures closely and drawn any appropriate lessons from them.
  The figures are important as they show that priority needs to be given to Government efforts, including those of the ECGD and, I hope, the privatised Insurance Services Group, to improve the export services to firms in the regions. That will encourage to export firms that may previously not have thought of exporting. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that, even if only 10 per cent. of the firms that do not export decided to do so, it could make a dramatic difference to our trade balance. We want to ensure that all measures are taken, including measures for the regionalisation of the ECGD and the privatised ISG, to enable would-be exporters fully to take advantage of the export opportunities which may be open to them. For all those reasons, I strongly support the points made by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I fear that the amendment reflects both a continuing misunderstanding of, or perhaps a reluctance to consider, how private industry operates and the long-established, always recurring phenomenon of Labour party interference with, intervention in, and excessive regulation of the private sector. In this case, the amendment would lay down where a particular company should have its operations.
  The Labour party ignores how the private sector works. It assumes that a private company has no regard for the interests of its customers and that in a mysterious way it can make profits without either having or attracting customers. I assure the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), as I had to in Committee, that that is not how private industry works. It succeeds by satisfying its customers and giving them what they want. It seeks to do so continually and is in general a great deal more successful, more flexible, and faster to change and respond to customer needs than nationalised industries. That is one of the many reasons why privatisation has been so successful.
  The way in which the amendments have been proposed reflects a failure to appreciate the relationship between an exporter and a regional office of the ECGD. We should not object to—indeed, we should welcome—any exporter who called at a regional office, but regional offices are more a base from which ECGD members of staff visit exporters than the other way round. The large number of inquiries to which the hon. Gentleman referred are largely by telephone or, these days, by fax. It is not as if many people are queuing at the door wanting to make export inquiries when the office opens in the morning. That is not what happens.
  We share at least one objective—the wish to help and encourage investors—but there are many better ways to do so than by trying to regulate in statute where and how many regional offices the privatised insurance services business should have. As I said in Committee, I am confident that the new owners of the ISG will wish to keep a network that reflects both its needs and those of its

  89
  customers, and developments in business communica-tions. I hope that hon. Members will at least recognise the speed at which business communications have changed and are likely to continue to change.
  It would be unreasonable and unhelpful to impose on a private company—which, incidentally, is in competition with other private companies—a statutory requirement about where it should have its regional offices, and how many there should be. The regional offices and their staff will be among the assets transferred on the privatisation of insurance services. The present locations are of long standing. They were chosen to provide a balance between the needs of insurance services customers for local service and contact, and the costs of running a widespread regional network, which would have to be funded by the premiums paid by exporters.
  8.15 pm
  The regional office network has never been entirely consistent with the United Kingdom standard planning regions and there is no particular reason why it should be so. The factors determining the locations are not regional in the sense of standard planning regions, but relate to the needs of customers and the balance between the costs of the network, the methods of contacting customers, the modern communications used and what assessment is made by the new owners of the base from which they wish to send out their representatives to contact customers.
  I urge the House to reject the amendments which, once more, show a failure to understand private business. They would unnecessarily interfere with and intervene in such business, certainly not to the advantage of its customers.
  Mr. Cousins: The Minister's answer is both curious and disappointing. It is curious because it substantially concedes the case that we are trying to make. In view of his remarks in a previous debate this afternoon, the Minister could not seek to deny the value of the regional offices. Nor did he seek to do so in his reply. It is clear in his mind that those regional offices deal with large numbers of inquiries and provide an extremely important counselling service. They undertake effective missionary work regarding the promotion and encouragement of exports, particularly among small and medium-sized industries, along precisely the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) described. The Minister does not in any way dispute our arguments about the value of that network of regional offices.
  The Minister's speech was curious because he said that we did not need to take any measures to retain the network of regional offices in the arrangements following privatisation. If the offices are as valuable as the Minister concedes, they must be worth preserving. There would be nothing extraordinary or unusual for the seller to ensure that the purchaser undertook to retain a network of continuing activity for a reasonable period. That does not constitute meddling or excessive regulation. It is slightly curious for a Minister from a Department that gave us the Financial Services Act 1986 to deliver lectures about the nature of excessive regulation.
  It may be far easier to make a provision in the sale to continue regional offices than to attempt to intervene later by administrative regulation or Government involvement to patch together what could have been saved at the outset by a simple inclusion of this point in the terms of the sale.
  90
  If we think that the network of regional offices is valuable, now is the easy moment to preserve and develop it. To return after the disposal of these activities to a private company and attempt to reimpose, rebuild, comment on, criticise, develop and worry about counselling services that may have disappeared so that the only service is somebody sitting beside a fax machine in London will be to act too late. Then the matter will be complicated and will require regulation and unnecessary Government intervention in the work of a private agency. We are now engaged in the process of disposal and this is the simple and right moment to ensure that the network of regional offices survives.
  Amendment negatived.
  Ms. Quin: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
  '(4A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that no scheme shall be made under this section without proper and timeous consultations with the relevant trade and exporting organisations and the accredited representatives of the employees' trade unions.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in page 5, line 31, at end insert—
  '( ) A scheme under this section shall contain a provision that there shall be a period of not less than three months, starting from the date of the announcement of the agreed purchase, for consultation and agreement on employment terms and conditions at transfer between the transferee and the employees' trade unions.'.
  No. 10 in page 6, line 7, clause 9, at end add—
  '(3) A scheme under Section 8 of this Act shall contain a provision that there shall be a period of not less than three months, starting from the date of the announcement of the agreement between the transferor and the transferee, for consultation and agreement on employment terms and conditions at transfer between the transferee and the employees' trade unions.'.
  Ms. Quin: The amendments deal with the important issue of consultation with the work force who will be affected by the establishment of the privatised ISG and the conditions under which those consultations should take place.
  Amendment No. 6 refers to
  "proper and timeous consultations with the relevant trade and exporting organisations and the accredited representatives of the employees' trade unions."
  Although we believe that consultations with the work force at Cardiff are important, we have also referred in the amendment to the importance of consultations with the relevant exporting organisations. The way in which the Government have proceeded with the Bill has not led to such satisfactory consultations.
  Amendment No. 21 refers to
  "a period of not less than three months, starting from the date of the announcement of the agreed purchase, for consultation and agreement on employment terms and conditions at transfer between the transferee and employees' trade unions."
  That is the minimum that should be required. Despite the so-called process of consultation, we are not convinced that there has been any meaningful consultation to allow the views of the work force to be heard. We do not believe that their ideas have been noted and accepted.
  Such consultation would be normal in most parts of the European Community. Given that one of the reasons the Government feel the Bill is necessary is as a response to possible changes in export credit in Europe, it would be a good idea if the Government followed the European

  91
  practice for consultation with the work force in Cardiff. We know, however, that the Government are opposed to the European social charter and that they do not like the idea of being obliged to consult employees, or to take their views into account. Presumably that explains their attitude to the privatisation of ECGD.
  Amendment No. 10 also refers to
  "a period of not less than three months … for consultation and agreement on employment terms and conditions".
  We believe that the discussions between the Government, the trade unions and the employees who will be affected must be wide-ranging to cover all the various terms and conditions that will obtain at transfer.
  Some of those terms and conditions will be the subject of later amendments and I know that the issue is also likely to be considered in another place when the Bill is subject to further discussion. However, we make no apology for referring to consultation and agreement now, as they are of vital concern to the employees who will be affected by the transfer.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Since the outset of discussions leading to the proposal for privatisation, ECGD has been careful to involve and consult interested parties, and that includes the staff, their trade unions and the relevant exporting associations. I am surprised at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) that there have been no such full and comprehensive consultations with the trade unions and individual members of staff. That suggestion is contrary to the facts.
  Before the decision to privatise was taken, Mr. Kemp received comments from all interested parties during his review, as did the inter-departmental working group of officials set up to study the options in the Kemp report. Those interested parties included trade unions. Major exporters and exporting organisations submitted their views to the Select Committee for Trade and Industry when it examined the future of ECGD. Numerous written representations have been taken into account. The trade unions also submitted evidence to the Select Committee through the Council of Civil Service Unions.
  Since the intention to privatise ISG was announced on 18 December 1989, the trade unions have been kept informed of developments and have had numerous opportunities for making their views known to ECGD's management at meetings of the department's Whitley committee and its sub-committees, including a special sub-committee relating to privatisation issues, which meets monthly.
  The hon. Lady will be aware that there have already been an exhaustive number of meetings. From time to time, there have also been meetings of the management and the chairmen of various sub-committees dealing with particular aspects of the privatisation. The topics covered in those meetings include personnel records and preliminary staff projections for the new company as well as for the proposed organisation of ECGD post-privatisation. I assure the hon. Lady that ECGD's trade unions will continue to be fully consulted as required by TUPE—Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
  All the invited bidders have already met the ECGD trade unions or have arranged to do so. The bidders will be able, if they wish, to have further discussions with the
  92
  unions before they submit their bids. The preferred purchaser, when identified, will have the opportunity to have further discussions with the trade unions about the terms and conditions offered.
  I cannot, of course, commit the preferred purchaser to any particular approach to those discussions, but the opportunity for them will exist. There should be sufficient opportunity for such discussions before the package of terms and conditions on offer is formally presented to all staff. When that has been done, the staff will be given at least a month to express their individual preferences. I believe that is an adequate time scale and there is no need to specify a different or longer one in the Bill.
  It would be unreasonable to include in statute a requirement that the parties involved should reach an agreement on terms and conditions within a set period, whether that meant three minutes, three weeks or three months.
  I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of full and proper consultation, and that is exactly what has already taken place. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary and, insofar as they suggest that there should be a period of not less than three months for consultation starting from the date of the announcement of the agreement, they would be unhelpful and would lead to uncertainty and difficulty not only for the staff, but exporters. I had hoped that it remained the hon. Lady's view that we should provide good assistance to exporters rather than make their job more difficult.
  Mr. Michael: It is not adequate to quote in support of consultation with staff consultation and comment on policy to a Select Committee in response to the Kemp report. That is no substitute for proper consultation on the current details of the way in which the privatisation will affect staff.
  To date there has been no meaningful consultation with ECGD trade unions by the management departments. That is illustrated by the fact that it was necessary to take the case to the central arbitration committee to force the management to release a report prepared by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte on the terms and conditions and pension right arrangements that are likely to apply to existing ECGD staff who agree to transfer to the newly privatised company.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when that point was made previously I had to point out that the staff had sought the release of that document before it had been prepared. It would have been extremely difficult for Messrs. Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte to hand over a report that had not been completed.
  Mr. Michael: The Minister repeats what he said in Committee, but the staff have also repeated their statement since the Minister made that statement. They have repeated that it was necessary for them to take such action to obtain the details of the terms and conditions and pension arrangements that were likely to apply to existing staff. It is surely right that the staff should be given information as early as possible and be fully consulted about it.
  The management's intention is as follows: once the purchaser of ISG has been selected, a package of employment terms and conditions will be presented to staff, who will then have one month in which to consider it and to decide whether to join the privatised company or

  93
  to remain in the civil service. That does not allow enough time for expert advice to be obtained on employment terms or for meaningful consultation to take place—the more so given the current backlog of items on which consultation and negotiation are needed.
  8.30 pm
  The Minister has said that he agrees with the Opposition on the need for consultation. Sad to say, such words come easily, but staff are still not to be given adequate consideration during the process of privatisa-tion. If the Minister agrees with us so readily, why does he not accept the amendments? If he is so willing to accept the principles behind them, why does he not accept them in full? The Minister has promised full and adequate consultation with staff at every stage from now on. I ask him to ensure that that happens in practice.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman asks why I do not accept the amendments. Amendment No. 6 states that
  "no scheme shall be made under this section without proper and timeous consultation".
  Who is to determine what "proper" means? A good reason for not accepting the amendments is that they are far too vague. Apart from the wide-ranging and continuing consultation with the trade unions to which I have already referred, 700 counselling interviews with members of staff have been held.
  Mr. Michael: On the second point, the Minister knows about the unsatisfactory answers given by the Department and by the Minister responsible for the civil service. On the first point, the last refuge of a Minister who has lost the argument is to suggest a difficulty in an amendment that would be impossible to resolve in law. The test of what is reasonable is well established in English law, and there would be no problem about testing these points in that way. I seem to remember that in Committee the Minister defended the word "reasonable".
  Mr. Sainsbury: The amendment contains the word "proper", not "reasonable".
  Mr. Michael: The Minister is quibbling. He is seeking a test of what is reasonable, and if the amendment, including the principles with which he says he agrees, were incorporated in law, the test of what is reasonable would suffice to determine whether a particular course of action was satisfactory. Either the Minister should accept the amendments, therefore, or, given the quality of advice that he has at his disposal, his colleagues in another place should return with fresh amendments to give effect to the principles with which he says he agrees.
  We are disappointed with the Minister's response and we shall keep these matters under close scrutiny. How the Minister pursues the undertaking that he has given in this short debate will also be a matter of scrutiny and debate in another place. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

  TRANSFERRED STAFF
  Ms. Quin: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 39, after '1981', insert
  'and the EC Directive 77/187 (The Acquired Rights Directive)'.
  94
  The amendment contains a reference to European Community directive 77/187—the acquired rights directive. We tabled the amendment because we understand that there may well be a discrepancy between the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the directive, under which the TUPE regulations were introduced in the United Kingdom.
  I refer the House to article 6 of the acquired rights directive:
  "The transferor and the transferee shall be required to inform the representatives of their respective employees affected by a transfer within the meaning of article 1(1) of the following: the reasons for the transfer; the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for the employees; measures envisaged in relation to the employees.
  The transferor must give such information to the representatives of his employees in good time before the transfer is carried out … If the transferor or the transferee envisages measures in relation to his employees, he shall consult his representatives in good time on such measures with a view to seeking agreement."
  The TUPE regulations only require the employer to inform recognised representatives long enough before a relevant transfer to enable consultation to take place, and they make no reference to seeking agreement.
  If the acquired rights directive is not fully honoured on this occasion, would employees in these circumstances have some sort of legal resource? To avoid any move of that sort, it would perhaps be sensible explicitly to invoke the acquired rights directive to cover the transfer of the ISG to a private buyer. By including a reference to the directive, which we have signed, a greater obligation to consult meaningfully with trade union representatives over the transfer would be imposed—an imposition that would include not only consultation but a commitment to seeking agreement between employees and Government over the proposals. That would be an important commitment, especially to the employees at Cardiff. By assuring them that their views are being fully taken into account they would know that the consultation is not just a cosmetic exercise that will not result in any changes.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the hon. Lady that the consultation is far from a cosmetic exercise. It is a full and comprehensive consultation—I have already mentioned 700 individual interviews—involving both trade unions and members of staff.
  The amendment is not appropriate. The acquired rights directive requires member states to enact provisions in their own law to give effect to the policy described in the directive. Under Community law directives are binding in effect, but the choice of form and method of achieving that effect is left to member states. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—we happily refer to them as TUPE—were the enactment of the directive in United Kingdom law. To apply the directive to the same transactions as those to which TUPE apply would be unnecessary and confusing for anyone trying to determine what his or her position in law was. It would apply two statutory provisions different in drafting style and expression and one of them, the acquired rights directive, was not framed with United Kingdom concepts of law in mind. It was not designed directly to operate in the context of the United Kingdom's legal system. The result would be increased uncertainty and possible doubt about the law.
  Having chosen to implement the acquired rights directive by means of TUPE, it is doubtful whether it

  95
  would be in accordance with Community law to try to implement it again in relation to a specific transaction to which TUPE would also apply. If we did that, we could be accused of avoiding the choice of a formal method, which is required under Community law. The amendment would injure the interests of ECGD staff by creating confusion about their rights. I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment and to stick to TUPE, which enacts in United Kingdom law the requirements of the acquired rights directive.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister tried to dodge the entire issue by claiming that TUPE is the British style enactment of the acquired rights directive. He must be able to demonstrate that the 1981 TUPE version of the 1977 acquired rights directive is relevant to 1991. In their 11 or 12 years in office, the Government have tried to cut this country away from the entire general drift of industrial relations provisions for consultation on major changes in employment by large firms. They have tried to cut Britain adrift from Community legislation on employment and from the social charter.
  There is an interesting and relevant item in The Independent this morning relating to the Government's problems on this issue. It shows that in 1991 this issue is still a burning topic. It is not enough to say, as the Minister has said, that TUPE incorporates the necessary legislation. If that is true, why was it necessary for the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the chairman of the Conservative party, to write on the topic to Wilfrid Martens, the chairman of the Christian Democrat Federation? The Independent seems to have acquired a copy of the letter which relates to the application by the British Conservative group in the European Parliament to become members of the Christian Democrat group. A typical Christian Democrat would have accepted our amendment straight away because it incorporates the latest and most up-to-date thinking about what employees deserve by way of consultation rights. The Government will not accept the amendment because of the current battle for the soul of the Conservative party.
  In his letter, the right hon. Member for Bath said that Britain supported
  "'a social dimension to the social market"".
  Many Conservative Ministers, including the two who are in the Chamber, would find that deeply offensive and contrary to their fundamental beliefs. The letter speaks of a social dimension,
  "that takes into full account the criteria agreed at the Madrid European Council in June 1989."
  It refers to the principle of job creation and recognises the principle of subsidiarity. I cite that letter in the context of the struggle for the soul of the Conservative party. Under the acquired rights directive or any legislation dealing with rights acquired or given to employees in any kind of transfer from the public to the private sector or, as is more common, during a takeover within the private sector, do the employees of a large enterprise have any right to be consulted?
  8.45 pm
  Most Conservative Members who are present in the Chamber think that such employees should not have any rights at all, but they are obliged to give them some under European directives because the Government need to
  96
  ensure that they can hang on to the people that they need to make a success of the transfer. The Minister said that British law in 1981 covered the 1977 acquired rights directive, but we need to know his interpretation for 1991 and beyond. Given what has happened in the past 10 years, is that the last word on acquired rights?
  More time should be given and we should make more use of formal trade union negotiating machinery. Will everything be done without reference to the formal negotiating rights of the Whitley council and the civil service trade unions? The Government like to bypass the trade union negotiating machinery so that they can pick people off one by one using special offers. They want to be able to make transfers to the private sector with as little consultation and trade union bargaining machinery as possible. We want from the Minister a bit of honesty about what the Government are playing at in seeking to effect a transfer with the minimum of acquired rights. People in Britain should have maximum acquired rights in the same way as people in other European countries.
  Ms. Quin: I should like to reinforce some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
  The Minister rightly said that European directives provide a framework for national legislation which is enacted in detail. However, there can be legal challenges if it is felt that a country has not satisfactorily implemented a directive. There have been legal challenges on many directives, such as the directive seeking to ensure equal opportunities for women in the workplace and the equal treatment directive. It has been claimed that the United Kingdom has not properly implemented directives. Surely it would be possible under the acquired rights directive to have such a challenge.
  The Minister said that, basically, we are debating two different statutory provisions—the acquired rights directive and the TUPE regulations. Is not it the case that, when the subject area is the same, the EC directive can override national legislation? In any legal dispute, the European directive has precedence over national regulations. Therefore, the two matters are not quite as separate as the Minister gave us to understand.
  Mr. Sainsbury: As I think I said, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations date from 1981. It would be possible to challenge whether they effectively implement the acquired rights directive, but they have been in place for 10 years and no such challenge has been made. I have not heard anyone suggest that they fail in any way satisfactorily to implement in United Kingdom law the acquired rights directive. It would be confusing to try to include the acquired rights directive as well as TUPE, which is the method of implementing that directive in United Kingdom law. TUPE takes account of our legal concepts but the acquired rights directive does not.
  Ms. Quin: The Minister has admitted that a legal challenge is possible. In any dispute between the TUPE regulations and the acquired rights directive the directive will be dominant. His reply confirms our wisdom in tabling the amendment. The issue is complicated and there are many different aspects to consider. Rather than pressing the amendment to a vote—I imagine that it will be examined in the other place—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

  VEHICLE COMPANIES
  Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 6, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 43 and insert
  'or any person acting on behalf of the Crown has a legal interest in them'.
  This is one of those celebrated technical amendments which, I am happy to say, we have not come across quite so often in the Bill as we sometimes do in other legislation.
  Clause 10(4)(a) is designed to ensure that any shares in a vehicle company which are contracted to be sold to the purchaser of the Insurance Services Group before those shares are created and issued are treated as a Crown holding for the purposes of subsection (4) of clause 10. That requires all the shares in a vehicle company to be held by the Crown as a condition of the Secretary of State acquiring any shares in it or making loans to it. If the shares are contracted to be sold before they are issued, there is concern that the purchaser might be treated as the beneficial owner of the shares and they would not, therefore, qualify as a Crown holding.
  The amendment redrafts the subsection to cover the normal practice whereby shares, which are sold or transferred soon after issue, are often issued and registered in the name of a nominee for the vendor, usually his solicitor or accountant, before they are transferred to the purchaser. The amendment ensures that a temporary holding of shares in a vehicle company by one of the Secretary of State's advisers, following the practice that I have described, will rank as a Crown holding for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 6, line 46, at end insert
  '(6) A vehicle company under this clause shall have its headquarters located within the Cardiff area. For the avoidance of doubt, this subsection shall apply to the initial and to any subsequent transfer.'.
  The amendment seeks to ensure that a vehicle company shall have its headquarters located within the Cardiff area. It also states that, to avoid doubt, the subsection should apply to the initial and any subsequent transfer.
  I hoped—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) shares my hope—that all four Cardiff Members would be here to argue that that source of major employment should remain in the Cardiff area. I recall that in Committee we discussed the importance of Cardiff to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, although not on this amendment—the reasons for that will be clear in a moment. In responding to that debate, the Minister—who unfortunately is not with us now--made several comments which were helpful to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and me. He said:
  "I see no reason why the new company should wish to move from Cardiff where it has operated more successfully during the past 10 years than at any other period in its history."
  That is a correct reference to the encouragement that the department was given on its arrival in Cardiff and throughout the period since then. The Minister went on to say:
  98
  "None of the organisations that has expressed an interest in owning the company and bidding for it has suggested moving from Cardiff."
  However, he also said that
  "the ultimate location of the privatised company must remain a decision for the management and owners of that company."
  That is not the case. There is no "must" about it. It is the Government's choice to leave that liberty in a way that they do not seem, from today's debate, interested in doing, with the employees of the department. It is perfectly proper for the Government to accept the amendment and to ensure that the employment of those people stays within the Cardiff area.
  When the Minister summed up his remarks in that debate, he warmed to his theme. He almost waxed eloquent, saying:
  "What are known as campus offices on the edge of town —they are spread out and provide good parking facilities— are often attractive. They may be just beyond the city boundary, yet be the most convenient place to which to attract staff. It would be inappropriate to include the amendment because it would be binding for ever."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 6 March 1991; c. 346–47.]
  Our amendment in Committee sought to limit the location of the headquarters of the privatised company within the boundaries of the city of Cardiff. In putting forward our amendment today, we have helped the Minister to accept our amendment. Clearly, he understood the principle upon which we based our argument in Committee. The amendment states:
  "A vehicle company under this clause shall have its headquarters located within the Cardiff area."
  There is no difficulty with that in English law—I use that phrase advisedly as I believe that we are not allowed to speak of Welsh or British law—because the test of what is reasonable comes in. For instance, it would not be within the Cardiff area were the headquarters to be relocated in Glasgow. It would be in the spirit of the amendment were the company to be relocated a short distance outside the boundary of Cardiff in south-east Wales, from which employees are now drawn.
  The arrival of the Insurance Services Group and the employees of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in Cardiff was not an accident. It was a choice to bring such employment to the area, as we in Cardiff suffered the effects of high unemployment and of the closure of some of our heavy industries. The gradual build-up in which some of us participated—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West was involved in economic development and I was very much involved in those spheres in local government—encouraged the development of financial services and modern forms of employment within the Cardiff area. It would be a sad day were that employment to drift away from Cardiff.
  The amendment seeks to make the Government recognise the validity of the Minister's words in Committee. They should recognise that it is reasonable for employees to be reassured that their jobs will remain in Cardiff, to recognise that it is reasonable for private companies bidding for ISG to be on a level playing field, knowing that the headquarters will be required to stay in Cardiff, and to have the matter dealt with once and for all.
  Having taken to heart the Minister's comments in Committee, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, who, during the Committee proceedings, seemed to have taken a vow of Trappist silence, will respond with enthusiasm and will accept the amendment. That would be in the interests of

  99
  the service that will be provided, the stability of staff and the security of the future of the privatised company. We do not seek to move the ISG into the private sector, but, if it must go there, we want it to be stable so that it continues to provide the service to exporters in which the Government seem to have less interest than ourselves.
  Mr. Morgan: I shall merely add a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said. He mentioned the principle that we are required to comply with English law. If we were writing the legislation in compliance with the principles of Welsh law, the amendment would read:
  "A vehicle company under this clause shall be garaged within the Cardiff area for the sake of the lower insurance rates."
  However, we cannot do that, but must stick to the turgid language to ensure that the legislation provides, and continues to provide, 700 jobs in the Cardiff district.
  9 pm
  Ministers have said 50 times if they have said it once that the Bill deals with the retention in the business, but under different owners, of the 700 people who live in Cardiff and the immediate surrounding commuting district who have provided high-class service to exporters since the business was transferred to Cardiff from London in 1977, leaving the project group in London. Originally, there were some doubts among people who said that there would be loss of face-to-face contact and talked of the greenness of the local labour force when they were hired rather than staff being transferred from London on civil service terms. It was questioned whether local people would have the experience of the financial services industry and the specialised forms of insurance. People asked whether they would pick up the skills. They did pick them up and have continued to provide a high-class service.
  As there is easier recruitment in the south Wales district, everyone is more than satisfied with the results. The employees are satisfied because they have, effectively, had a higher standard of living through lower house prices. The exporters are happy because there has been greater commitment to the job—perhaps because there is less choice of employment and people pitch in that little bit extra and yield that extra commitment to the job because they know it really counts in south Wales, whereas such jobs in the London district might be ten a penny, given the proximity of the City.
  Those people deserve not to be messed about—one could say, not to be messed about for a second time in less than 15 years—simply because the Government want to effect a transfer of ownership out of the public sector into the private sector, so is effectively putting jobs and careers on the auction block without guarantees about what will happen afterwards. That is particularly true since we now learn that one of the bidders on the list of the half a dozen presented to us in that peculiar hole-and-corner fashion in the closing days in Committee has dropped out. Now, three of the bidders are foreign and two are British.
  Therefore, there is now more than a fifty-fifty chance that employers may well finish up working for a non-British private sector company. That naturally increases their fears that a company based in Belgium, Amsterdam or Trieste may want a base in London, where much of the private insurance is located. Such foreign
  100
  companies might not see the advantage of continued employment in Cardiff in the way in which a British company would because it would know the difference in supply and demand for labour in the financial services industry in Cardiff compared to London. Such advantages might not be so readily apparent to the majority of the bidders—three out of five of them come from other European countries. One way to overcome the natural fears of people in the Cardiff district, try to smooth the transfer and make the Government seem less hard-hearted and utterly ruthlessly ideological in their approach would be to write in a guarantee clause to show that the Government will bind the successful bidder to the continuation of the operation in Cardiff.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, the Minister said that he agreed with us in spirit but did not like the wording because it was too specific as to the city of Cardiff and its boundaries. He does so all the time; whenever we propose any amendment, he says that he would love to be able to help us, agrees with us 100 per cent., but our wording does not do the trick and will cause all sorts of doubts and complications. We have come up with a wording that overcomes those difficulties, but I know that he will refuse the amendment. We have heard weasel words from start to finish. The Committee stage was full of weasel words from the Minister—as is the Report stage. As we have a change of Minister, will the hon. Gentleman for once try some badger or frog words —any words but weasel words—and give some reassurance to the 700 employees whom we represent in the absence of the two Cardiff Conservative Members of Parliament?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). However, I have to disappoint them tonight because the privatised company's ultimate location must remain a decision for its management and owners. To place on them such a restriction would inhibit their freedom to manage the business as they see fit, and would be likely to prejudice the sale prospects and the proceeds. It would certainly be a most unusual, if not unique, restriction on a commercial company. I say that in answer to a point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Presumably it would be possible to put such a suggestion in a statute, but it would be most unusual, if not unique, to do so.
  Subject to the owner's views, the present insurance services management intention is that the company's headquarters should remain in the Cardiff district. I see no reason why the company would wish to move away from a location where it had operated so successfully for 10 years—indeed, from where it has operated more successfully than ever before in its history, and where costs are considerably lower than in other areas, especially the south-east of England. That must be the answer to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.
  In any service business such as the Insurance Services Group, the staff are its major asset. It is a pleasure for me to reiterate the praise heaped upon the staff of the ISG by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. It is the understanding of the members of that staff of the needs of exporters and

  101
  their knowledge of overseas markets that exporters are selling on which the business is built. That is the primary strength of the business.
  In the past few years there have been significant improvements in the speed of the service that is provided to the ISG's customers. That has been brought about by the use of new information technology systems. As hon. Members will know, the full benefits of these systems are realised only with a fully trained work force of the type that is to be found in Cardiff. It is testimony to the skill and dedication of the ISG staff that more than 80 per cent. of credit limit applications from overseas buyers are processed within 24 hours. It is difficult to imagine any reason the owners of the new company could have for risking their most important asset by moving their operations away from the Cardiff area. None of the organisations which has expressed an interest in the possibility of owning the company has indicated any wish to move from Cardiff.
  An amendment with a similar intention behind it to that which we are now discussing was moved and debated in Committee. I have taken the opportunity to re-read the report of the debate, and I refer to columns 345 to 349 of the Hansard report of the Committee's ninth sitting. That amendment was withdrawn after a full discussion, and reference has been made to that discussion this evening. It was said in that discussion that ultimately these are matters for management to decide and are not appropriate for statute. I return to the original contention that it would be almost unique to decide such matters by statute. I hope that Opposition Members will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Cousins: Having listened carefully to the Minister, I ask him to clarify, both in the context of Cardiff and elsewhere, what the Government's policy is towards the disposal of the property assets in which the Export Credits Guarantee Department is based. The assurance that he has given about the future of the department at Cardiff would be greatly reinforced if it were known that the property assets in which the activities are located will form part of the sale.
  Mr. Leigh: The main property is held on lease. Nothing that I have said affects that. The hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, will know that there has to be a move from the present offices. That is accepted. I think that it has been made known locally that the move will take place and that a period of grace of three years has been given to the ECGD. We are not looking for any instant moves. It is clear that the department will have to move from its offices, and nothing that I have said affects that.
  Mr. Cousins: Perhaps the Minister will let me know later, if not now, what the policy is on the disposal of the property assets in which the department is situated.
  Mr. Leigh: I do not think that that issue is relevant to the debate. We are discussing whether the location of the company should be in the Cardiff area. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, as has my hon. Friend the Minister of State. If we can provide him with further elucidation by letter, we shall do so.
  Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can help by referring to the generosity of Cardiff city council in working to keep employment within the city by relaxing covenants, as the
  102
  Minister has said, despite the council's opposition to the privatisation, to allow the privatised company time to find a new location within Cardiff or the immediate area.
  I think that I begin to understand why the Minister kept quiet in Committee. He was almost over-enthusiastic in replying to this debate. Tributes to Cardiff, to the department's staff and to improved services were building up to a crescendo. There were references to skill and dedication to the extent that we thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to accept the amendment. Unfortunately, he let us down in the end.
  Just as the Minister sought an excuse in Committee for not accepting the amendment, he has not accepted the amendment today, even with the obstacle which his hon. Friend identified removed from it. We are sad because the amendment which we debated in Committee was withdrawn on the basis that the location could not be limited so tightly within the city boundary. That is why we have come back with this constructive amendment tonight. It is clear that the Government do not intend to accept it, even in the spirit that was demonstrated in Committee. We were offered merely words, not a real promise to retain the headquarters in the Cardiff area.
  I am sure that I can speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) in saying that the attractions of Cardiff as a location and the quality of the staff there are strengths on which we can depend. It is unfortunate that the Government have not sought to turn that good chance into certainty. With sadness, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Ms. Quin: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 9, at end add—
  `(8) The Secretary of State shall not dispose of any shares in or securities of a vehicle company unless the purchaser of such shares or securities has given an unequivocal and binding guarantee to the Secretary of State that the purchaser will at all times operate with the objective of encouraging or facilitating, directly or indirectly, the supply by persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom of goods or services to persons carrying on business outside the United Kingdom.'.
  The amendment places on the new privatised company an obligation to operate with the objective of encouraging or, if appropriate, facilitating directly or indirectly the export of goods and services. The Minister will remember that in Committee we expressed our great anxiety over the fact that the commitment to encourage exports that appeared in the earlier Bill was not repeated in this Bill. We discussed that commitment to encourage exports in relation to the continuing ECGD.
  We feel that it is important at this stage to ascertain from the Minister whether the newly privatised company will have a statutory commitment to encourage exports. I imagine that the Minister will say that the new privatised company will obviously want to promote and encourage exports. None the less, he will be aware that exporters were worried that the phrase "encouragement of exports" was omitted from the Bill. They will wish to be assured that both the continuing ECGD and the privatised ISG will have a strong commitment to encourage exports.
  In Committee we had an interesting discussion about the relative strengths of the words "facilitate" and "encourage". The Minister will see that the amendment contains both expressions so that there can be no doubt about the extent of the commitment of the new company to promoting exports. The amendment would ensure that

  103
  ISG is not tempted to turn away business simply because it is not immediately or obviously profitable even though it may lead to good long-term prospects for British industry in overseas markets. We are worried that short-term export credit insurance may not be available for many overseas markets and that export premium costs might rise steeply.
  If there is a statutory commitment to the encouragement of exports, the company will have an additional objective to the simple one of dealing with profitable markets. There will be a wider commitment to the health of United Kingdom exporters and the United Kingdom economy as a whole. We would like to hear the Minister's response to the amendment and we hope that he will look favourably on it.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Lady asked for my response to an amendment that is well-intentioned but, as is so often the case with such amendments, so vaguely worded that, were we to include it in the Bill, I do not know how we could ever determine whether a purchaser had operated at all times with the objectives set out in the amendment. I do not know of any criteria or test that one could apply to determine, with sufficient accuracy for something included in a statute, whether a requirement had been met.
  There is a much better way to ensure that that requirement is met—I appreciate that it is a way that the Opposition find hard to accept and even harder to understand—and that is competition, which is an effective test of whether a company is providing a good service. If it is not, the customer can take his business somewhere else.
  The amendment completely overlooks the fact that the Insurance Services Group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department is already operating in a competitive market. There are other providers, and there is every sign that the number of providers and the degree of competition will steadily increase.
  In addition, the commitment to ISG's business and to its existing customers has already been a key factor in selecting the shortlist of those invited to tender. That arose out of earlier discussions with potential bidders. As I have already said, that commitment—not only a commitment but an understanding—and the resources necessary to carry out the work of ISG will be a major factor in determining the final purchaser from the shortlist.
  Examination of the shortlist of bidders will confirm that the Government are negotiating with parties who clearly understand the market and are committed to it. I am totally confident that a purchaser, to meet the competition that the Insurance Services Group will encounter, will endeavour to provide a quality of service to its customers that will persuade them to continue coming to the ISG for export credit insurance.
  Therefore, privatisation will be good for exporters, not only because of the competitive element but because it will enable privatised business to provide a more flexible service, combining export and domestic credit insurance where that is appropriate. It certainly seems to be required by a number of existing customers.
  104
  In summary, one could say that as the amendment is misguided, unnecessary, inappropriate and impractical, it should be rejected.
  Ms. Quin: The Minister often criticises our amendments as being too vague or too precise. It seems that we are not able to please him at all with the ideas that we have suggested. I am perfectly well aware of the importance of competition and of market forces. Competition can be healthy and can have a healthy effect. Nonetheless, throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has demonstrated the wildly over-optimistic belief that somehow everything will be successfully sorted out by this policy of privatisation and competition. The two may not work in harmony because one of the problems that we mentioned in Committee was that in certain cases privatisation might reduce rather than increase competition. That argument has not been dealt with by the Minister.
  We are also aware that the climate in which competition takes place may not always be conducive to balanced economic growth, which explains some of our previous amendments—for example, that on regional networks. Also, within the European Community—our focus with the privatisation of the ISG—there can be many substantiated claims of unfair competition.
  Part of the wording that the Minister objects to is already in legislation—for example, that on the encouragement of exports. For that reason, I do not believe that the amendment is as inappropriate or as misguided as he suggests. The evidence shows that exporters have been able to live happily with the wording in existing legislation and so his comments on the amendment are not justified. However, once again I am sure that the importance of encouragement to export will form part of the deliberations in another place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

  REINSURANCE OF ECGD RISKS
  Ms. Quin: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 7, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'under' in line 11 and insert
  'Any transferee shall be obliged to consent to make, if so requested by the Secretary of State, arrangements with the Secretary of State'.
  This is a probing amendment. Clause 11, as drafted, would enable the Secretary of State to establish an arrangement with the privatised company under which it would provide reinsurance for the insurance business underwritten by the ISG before privatisation—in other words, in respect of insurance policies that are still to run off.
  We wonder whether a problem might occur if the privatised company refused to reach such an arrangement with the Secretary of State. The amendment is intended to oblige the privatised company to agree to the arrangement, if the Secretary of State wants one. Its aim is really to get at the reasoning behind the wording of the Bill.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I understand from what the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has said that we are dealing with a probing amendment. I have noted the number of occasions on which Opposition Members have

  105
  asked leave to withdraw their amendments on the ground that they wish to leave further deliberation to another place. A remarkable degree of enthusiasm for the work of the other place seems suddenly to have been generated, and Opposition Members appear to be almost anxious to add to its work load by not taking a decisive view of any of their amendments. None the less, I appreciate that this is a probing amendment.
  It may be helpful if I remind hon. Members that clause 11 enables the Secretary of State to transfer to the new company the bulk of the insurance service business that exists on the date of privatisation. The transfer will be achieved through the company providing reinsurance to ECGD in respect of existing and future risks under policies issued by the ECGD after 31 March 1987. Although it will be the reinsurer, the company will continue to administer the risks on behalf of the ECGD, which will remain the primary insurer.
  This method of transferring a business is not uncommon in the insurance market, and avoids any complications that may be involved in directly transferring liabilities under insurance policies to a new insurer.
  Given the circumstances, the amendment is unnecessary. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate for legislation to dictate the detailed terms of a sale contract that is yet to he negotiated. As has already been made clear, the intention is to privatise the Insurance Services Group as a going concern. The invitation to tender sets out the Government's proposals for an arrangement that enables the bulk of the existing credit insurance business to be transferred to the new group.
  The draft new contracts are in the invitation to tender —a copy is available in the Library. They provide a way of putting that into effect. Bidders, however, are not precluded from submitting alternative proposals for consideration. It would be disadvantageous to the sale process if we imposed, by means of the amendment, detailed terms on bidders. Therefore, we should not accept the amendment. It would be better to leave the opportunity for another method of transfer to be accepted, if that should prove advantageous.
  Ms. Quin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Cousins: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 14, at end insert—
  `1(A) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements with any transferee under which all companies carrying on business in the United Kingdom for whom the tranferee will provide export credit insurance or similar assistance, not confined to the arrangements set out under section 1(4), shall have the right of access, and the opportunity to make representations, to the Secretary of State in relation to, any aspect, of the conduct and operations of the transferee.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 31, in page 7, line 14, at end insert
  '(1A) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements with any transferee under which all companies carrying on business in the United Kingdom for whom the transferee may make available export credit insurance or similar assistance shall have the right of access, and the opportunity to make representations to, the Secretary of State in relation to any aspect of the conduct and operations of the transferee.'.
  Mr. Cousins: The amendments are intended to ensure that, if and when the concern is privatised, the range of businesses—many of them small—whose export credit
  106
  insurance will be conducted privately will continue to have access to the Secretary of State. The Minister made much of the markets. It is an inevitable fact of life that the markets reflect the power of the various actors in those markets. With the privatisation of the Insurance Services Group, we are dealing, on the one hand, with a very large insurance company and, on the other, with a mass of exporters, many of them small, who rely on that insurance company for short-term insurance. Inevitably, therefore, the power of the markets may work very much to the advantage of the supplier of the insurance facility and very much to the disadvantage of those who depend upon it. That point has been made time and again during the discussion of this issue by bankers and companies, both large and small.
  It is significant that the major clearing banks are concerned about that aspect. They are worried that their customers in other parts of the commercial world will become dependent upon a monopoly insurer for that critical part of their business. They are also worried about its consequences for premium rates, the availability of cover for particular markets, access to cover for particular deals, additional conditions that may be imposed, or the withdrawal of cover facilities from certain companies or individuals. That is what may happen if there were a major supplier of an insurance facility and a mass of small to medium-size enterprises that depended upon it.
  The amendments would introduce a statutory right of access to the Secretary of State by small and medium-size companies. It must be reasonable, even to someone who is absolutely committed to the workings of the market, that a fail-safe provision should be included in the Bill. A survey into the changes was carried out by the Export Credits Guarantee Department on behalf of the Government. A key question was put to 400 companies in the survey. The Minister will recollect his doubts about surveys, but this one was carried out on behalf of the Government. Those 400 companies were asked whether the proposed change in the ECGD's status to that of a trading company would result in a better service to exporters. The majority had no view to express and did not know what to say. Their doubts about what the future may hold for them would be dealt with by the acceptance of amendments Nos. 13 and 31.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is here while we are discussing this amendment. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) has a touching faith in the powers of Secretaries of State. I know that my right hon. Friend shares my view that competition and the opportunity to take one's business elsewhere is a much better choice for the consumer than an appeal to a Secretary of State—even one as able as my right hon. Friend. The amendment fails to grasp the realities of the market, which provides competition, and it also fails to understand the purpose of the Bill.
  To provide a means of appeal to the Secretary of State on the activities of a private sector company seems to me to go against what we know works and what we know is effective. It is yet another example of the Labour party seeking to impose Whitehall interference and excessive regulation on industry. The normal commercial and legal remedies would be available to customers of the privatized

  107
  Insurance Services Group who had difficulties with the privatised company about the performance of any contracts. That goes without saying.
  Of course, the privatised company will have to comply with the requirements of the Companies Acts, and the insurance company will have to be authorised by the Secretary of State under the insurance companies legislation. The Secretary of State is responsible for the administration of the legislation. Anyone is free to make representations to him about issues arising; no special arrangements have to be made.
  I urge the House to reject an amendment that, once again, seeks to introduce Whitehall regulation as a substitute for competition.
  9.30 pm
  Ms. Quin: If the sale of ISG were to result in the existence of only one major short-term credit insurer in the United Kingdom—a virtual monopoly—would the Secretary of State be willing to receive representations from exporters concerned about rises in premium rates or about the possibility of the withdrawal of facilities? Does the Minister accept that regulation is important? The Government have told us that they are rather keen on regulation as a framework within which private companies operate. That makes our amendment seem very reasonable.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I have already made it clear that the regulatory arrangements to which I have referred will certainly apply. As the hon. Lady knows, the market is becoming steadily more competitive, and there is every indication that whoever is chosen from the short list of those invited to tender for the purchase will continue that trend. If the purchaser—who might well at any time have a large part of the United Kingdom market—were to become uncompetitive, there would be no shortage of people willing to take on the business at more competitive rates. There would be no shortage of other suppliers of export credit insurance to whom customers could turn.
  There would be no point in the purchaser's taking advantage of his customers. In a competitive world, that is not the way in which people go about their business. Business men seek to keep their customers—indeed, to build up their trade. That is why competition works, and why regulation—actually, interference and intervention —by Whitehall is not nearly such an effective means of giving the customer what he wants.
  Mr. Cousins: The Minister's reply is mystifying. These amendments do not suggest any right of appeal in any sense that would be recognised at law; nor do they create any regulations or machinery that could produce regulations. They seek merely to guarantee a right to consult the Secretary of State in the event of difficulty.
  The Minister talks glibly about how competition works. With the privatisation of the Insurance Services Group, we are dealing, on one hand, with a very large and commercially powerful supplier of financial services, and, on the other hand, with a range of often quite small businesses. No one doubts that a large, sophisticated multinational company, such as GEC, would readily be able to find alternative sources of insurance. It is very unlikely that the same would apply to a far less
  108
  sophisticated business, working in a particular market and providing a very narrow range of products, outside the major commercial centres of Britain. Such a business will be extremely vulnerable to the withdrawal of insurance facilities in respect of either some range of its activities or some of its markets.
  I should have thought that the Minister could accept these amendments as a means of providing Government access to knowledge about the workings of the insurance market. It is astonishing that the Minister not only does not seek to welcome the right of access to such knowledge, but regards it with contempt. It is a pity that Ministers should take that view about the representations that might come to them from smaller businesses. No doubt they will have picked up from the tone of tonight's debate just in what regard the Minister places them.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 15

    SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT, ETC
    Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 16, at end add—
    `(7) This Act shall not come into force or replace the old law unless and until it is rendered necessary by directives agreed within the European Community.'.
    After discussing a number of amendments, it is quite interesting to come back to base and discuss whether the legislation is necessary in the absence of any requirement from Europe for the changes which are the basis of the Bill.
    It is a fact that existing EC legislation on official, state-backed export credit insurance does not prohibit the ECGD from providing insurance for United Kingdom exporters exporting to other EC markets and that if new legislation were to be introduced prohibiting such insurance official export credit insurers such as ECGD would have sufficient time to adjust—probably two to three years as with single market legislation. It is a fact that if existing legislation, for instance the distortion of trade restrictions under article 92 of the treaty of Rome, were to be interpreted afresh in relation to official export credit insurance, again there would be plenty of time for bodies such as the ECGD to react and change. As we said before the start of the Bill's sad progress through the House, there would be plenty of time for any changes to be made were there to be such pressure from Europe, but there is no such pressure. To push ahead with ISG's full privatisation is unnecessary at this stage in relation to EC legislation. If 1SG were to be changed to a Government-owned company, the Government would be able to continue to provide full backing—though not as direct as at present —for United Kingdom exporters, while retaining the flexibility to effect a full privatisation if any new EC legislation were to arise. The fact that the Government have not chosen that course demonstrates the dogmatic and extreme nature of the legislation.
    The question of increased competition for ISG services to United Kingdom exporters from other EC export credit insurers is slightly different. With effect from 1 July 1990 when the second non-life insurance directive came into force, EC insurers have been able to provide insurance for exporters in one member state in the EC without needing to have a representative or branch office in that member state. Some state-backed credit insurers, notably COFACE of France, have had offices in the United

    109
    Kingdom for several years without having any serious impact on the ECGD. However, the directive has forced the pace of change and has meant that the ISG should face greater competition for its services—although that has not materialised yet—which could threaten its future viability and which it cannot counter. That is because the Act under which the ECGD operates relates only to United Kingdom exporters, and the Government are very unlikely to agree to a change of the Act to allow the ECGD to insure exports from other EC countries and thus compete on an equal basis with other European credit insurers.
    It is sad that the Government do not wish our own institutions to compete on an equal basis with European institutions. Although other EC business would be profitable, the insurance provided for it by the Government would be regarded as an additional contingent liability. It must be the case that a Government-owned company, and the 1SG as it is currently constituted, could provide export credit insurance for other EC exporters just as easily as a privatised ISG would be able to, and such insurance could be provided under a separate account operated on a strictly commercial basis.
    As I said, we come back to the beginning of the sad series of events. When an announcement was made of the Government's intention to take the Insurance Services Group into the private sector, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I went to see the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—who usually managed to stay awake during debates. We asked him to tell us what made the privatisation necessary, but he was completely unable to do so. That is why I want the full attention of the present Secretary of State. The Minister who represented him in Committee throughout the privatisation process was unable, when challenged, to give us a reason why the legislation was necessary as a result of any legislation, regulation or other changes within the European Community. There is no reason for the Bill. No reason other than that it is an EC requirement has been given. The only reason offered by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when he announced the intention to proceed with the legislation, was that it would be required by European Community directives. The amendment merely states:
    "This Act shall not come into force or replace the old law unless and until it is rendered necessary by directives agreed within the European Community."
    All we ask is that the reason given for the legislation by the then Secretary of State should be the criterion according to which it is acted upon. Surely that is reasonable. Surely the Minister and the present Secretary of State agree that the amendment would require them merely to stand by their own logic in introducing the legislation.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Of all the amendments tabled by the Opposition, I suspect that this is the most damaging to the interests of exporters—and it has had some competition. The amendment is wide ranging and covers the whole Bill. If it were accepted—especially against the background presented by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—it would delay for a considerable time—and from what he said, he would prefer it to delay it for ever—the opportunity for the ECGD to exercise its new powers contained in part I. It would also prevent the ECGD from using the new financial management powers contained in clause 3, which permit arrangements to contain, control and possibly reduce the costs of the
    110
    ECGD's portfolio. That hardly seems sensible. It would delay the modernisation and improvement of the powers of the continuing ECGD. The new arrangements on investment and insurance and the new reporting arrangements would all be prevented by the amendment.
    Perhaps more seriously, the Opposition persist in their erroneous belief that there is no reason to suspect that there would be any challenge from the European Community to state export credit insurance operations. They have argued that, because there is not yet any European Community legislation prohibiting state involvement, Government plans to privatise the insurance services business are over-hasty or premature. I can only imagine what accusations they would make when, if EC legislation were passed, we were not prepared for it and our exporters suffered as a consequence. I suggest that the Opposition's belief means that they are turning their back on reality. Debates on the implication of official export credit insurance operations have been a regular feature of discussions within the relevant experts' working groups in Brussels in recent months in anticipation of the completion of the single market at the end of 1992. There have been a number of Commission initiatives to regulate or to harmonise officially supported export credits. The possibility of a challenge to official short-term operations has become more immediate.
    There was the delivery of the Advocate General's opinion following the action brought by a Belgian private credit insurer against the European Council and the European Commission. The Advocate General considered the case inadmissible on technical grounds, but otherwise well founded in substance. That is fairly conclusive evidence that the legal challenge to which we refer is real and imminent.
    The case was brought by Les Assurances du Credit SA, known as Namur, against the EC Council and the Commission. Namur alleges that the various directives relating to non-life insurance discriminate against private sector companies by placing official agencies in a privileged position. That legal opinion reinforces a view commonly held about official export credit arrangements. I suggest to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth not only that the amendment is ill-conceived in that it would delay getting the benefit of the improvements in the powers of ECGD which are contained throughout the Bill, but that it ignores the reality of the legal challenge that is looming from the European Community. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Michael: The Minister has repeated his arguments. They are no stronger and no more valid than they were in Committee when they were roundly dismissed. He says that it is damaging not to be ready for change. It is even more damaging to fail to support our exporters. The Minister says that it is a damaging and wide-ranging amendment. Despite its brevity, the debate has demonstrated that the Government's only argument for introducing the Bill is, as it always was, misplaced and false. We are content to stand by our demonstration of that in this debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    9.47 pm
    Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Bill is excellent and will provide further assistance to British exporters in a number of ways. The Opposition's resistance to it has been another manifestation of their attitude to privatisation, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has derided as unnecessary, unproductive and unhelpful to exporters. It is quite the contrary. A privatised Insurance Services Group will be able to provide a still better and more flexible service to exporters. It will be able to provide the domestic credit insurance that it is presently unable to provide and it will, therefore, cover its customers' needs more comprehensively, which customers are clearly anxious to see. Furthermore, it will be able to pursue business overseas if it so wishes. I scarcely think that the Opposition would propose that taxpayers' money should be used through a Government-owned ECGD to enable that business to provide export credit indurance for the exports of other countries competing with British exports.
    The primary reasons for the privatisation are business reasons, which the Opposition have persistently failed to recognise. Privatisation is the only realistic way in which to enable insurance services to compete freely with other credit insurers in Europe and to meet the needs of United Kingdom companies by allowing them access to a package of credit insurance covering both domestic and export business. At present, the Insurance Services Group's ability to respond to competition is restricted. The Bill will remove those restrictions and enable the Insurance Services Group to provide a still better service to our exporters. It will also allow the Insurance Services Group to meet any legal challenge. It is clear from what I said on Report that the legal challenge is real and near.
    The legal challenge may be mounted at any time against state export credit insurers as representing a state aid incompatible with article 92 of the treaty of Rome. Furthermore, the Bill contains a number of other improvements, especially those in clause 3, which will enable the continuing ECGD to manage its important portfolio of investments to the greater benefit of the taxpayer and, therefore, to the greater benefit of exporters.
    The Bill is the most radical overhaul of export credit arrangements in their 70 years of existence. The Government have never shirked from taking radical steps when they are necessary and beneficial to British industry, as the Bill is. It will help by providing a more flexible, more responsive, more customer-oriented and up-to-date service through the privatised Insurance Services Group and it will enable the ECGD to provide a better service for project exports. I commend the Bill to the House.
    9.49 pm
    Ms. Quin: The Third Reading takes place after detailed consideration of the Bill, particularly in Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for the way in which they scrutinised it so carefully in Committee. In doing so, they effectively stood up for the interests of industry and exporters.
    The Minister has tried to come across as the voice of sweet reason. One would think that he has been listening carefully to exporters and industry and to the work force at the ECGD in Cardiff and their representatives, and that he is part of a Government who strongly support exports.
    112
    One would never realise the reality—that, first, the Bill is highly controversial legislation which does not command the widespread support that the Minister suggested and, secondly, that exporters are deeply suspicious and worried about the future of the ECGD and about privatisation.
    Exporters are worried about how the ECGD will work. In particular, as they have told us several times, they are worried about the workings of the portfolio management system and about the continuing pressure to reduce cover for many countries and markets. They believe that the restrictions on the ECGD will not allow them to win business and contracts in those markets.
    It is clear from the correspondence and meetings that Labour Members have had with firms and their representatives that they are deeply worried about certain aspects of the privatisation. Manufacturing industry is particularly worried. Some of our major exporters, who sub-contract to many smaller firms, are deeply worried about the effect of privatisation and what it will mean for premium rates and the amount of insurance and reinsurance that will be available. The Minister sought to offer industry some comfort about the system for reinsurance and political risk reinsurance. None the less, the strongest objections and concerns have been expressed to us, and nothing less than a statutory commitment to continue political risk reinsurance, in its fullest form, will be acceptable to industry.
    One would never think that the Bill is being considered against the background of three years of trade deficit or at a time of recession, when industry is suffering considerable hardship and difficulty. The Bill is an inappropriate response to current circumstances and we are not surprised that industry is so concerned about it.
    In Committee, some Conservative Members were unhappy about what was being proposed. They have been less vocal tonight, but we have noticed some mutterings and expressions of continuing unhappiness on the Government Benches. Those hon. Members are in close contact with firms and industries in their constituencies and are aware of the amount of discontent that is being expressed.
    Mr. Barry Porter: I do not wish to involve myself in the mutterings which it has been suggested come from this side. It strikes me that most Conservative Members accept the general principles of privatisation, competition and so on in the Bill. Mutterings arise only about whether industrialists and exporters are getting equality of treatment with competitors. That is the problem. Perhaps the hon. Lady will ask the Minister whether that is to be kept under continual review. I do not like to use the phrase "level playing field", but there is in the Bill an element of digging holes in the pitch.
    Ms. Quin: Indeed, the arguments about the level playing field were consistently advanced in Committee. Certainly exporters are not so much muttering as shouting discontent about this issue. Many statistics have been given for the different premium rates charged in different parts of Europe; they show that our exporters are disadvantaged compared with their European counterparts.
    Even if privatisation were shown to be desirable, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is right to say that the timing of the measure is unfortunate as we do not know what the European

    113
    Community is likely to propose. It is simply silly to guess its proposals in advance. As a result of whatever the proposals are, the Minister may well find that this legislation is inappropriate.
    The legislation will now proceed to another place. I hope that the Government will not be able to rely on the supine support of their supporters there. It is well known that there are independent-minded members who may support the Government on certain issues, but may not do so on this legislation. We urge the Government to listen carefully to the amendments that are likely to be tabled in the other place.
    Better than accepting the amendments tabled in the other place, it would be advisable for the Government even at this late stage to abandon this ill-judged, ill-thought-out and dogmatic legislation.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 194.

    Division No. 109]

    [9.57 pm

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Couchman, James

    Alexander, Richard

    Cran, James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Allason, Rupert

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

    Amess, David

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Amos, Alan

    Day, Stephen

    Arbuthnot, James

    Devlin, Tim

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Dicks, Terry

    Ashby, David

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Atkinson, David

    Dover, Den

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Baldry, Tony

    Dykes, Hugh

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Eggar, Tim

    Batiste, Spencer

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Bellingham, Henry

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Evennett, David

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Fallon, Michael

    Benyon, W.

    Favell, Tony

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Body, Sir Richard

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forman, Nigel

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Boswell, Tim

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bottomley, Peter

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Franks, Cecil

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Freeman, Roger

    Bowis, John

    French, Douglas

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Fry, Peter

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Gale, Roger

    Brazier, Julian

    Gill, Christopher

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

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Burns, Simon

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Burt, Alistair

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Butler, Chris

    Gorst, John

    Butterfill, John

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gregory, Conal

    Cash, William

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Grist, Ian

    Chope, Christopher

    Ground, Patrick

    Churchill, Mr

    Grylls, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hague, William

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hannam, John

    114

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

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Harris, David

    Norris, Steve

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Page, Richard

    Hayward, Robert

    Paice, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hill, James

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Holt, Richard

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Portillo, Michael

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Price, Sir David

    Hunt, Rt Hon David

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Irvine, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Jack, Michael

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Janman, Tim

    Rost, Peter

    Jessel, Toby

    Rowe, Andrew

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Key, Robert

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Shelton, Sir William

    Knox, David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Latham, Michael

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Lord, Michael

    Speed, Keith

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Speller, Tony

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    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 Patrick

    Stern, Michael

    Madel, David

    Stevens, Lewis

    Malins, Humfrey

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mans, Keith

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Marland, Paul

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Marlow, Tony

    Stokes, Sir John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mates, Michael

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Thorne, Neil

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mills, Iain

    Tracey, Richard

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tredinnick, David

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Trippier, David

    Moate, Roger

    Trotter, Neville

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Viggers, Peter

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Moss, Malcolm

    Walden, George

    Mudd, David

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Needham, Richard

    Ward, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Watts, John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wells, Bowen

    115

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Whitney, Ray

    Yeo, Tim

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Wilkinson, John

    Wilshire, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Wood, Timothy

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Darling, Alistair

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Allen, Graham

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Anderson, Donald

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

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dewar, Donald

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dixon, Don

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Doran, Frank

    Ashton, Joe

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Barron, Kevin

    Eadie, Alexander

    Battle, John

    Eastham, Ken

    Beckett, Margaret

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Beith, A. J.

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fatchett, Derek

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

    Fearn, Ronald

    Benton, Joseph

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Flannery, Martin

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Flynn, Paul

    Blair, Tony

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Blunkett, David

    Foster, Derek

    Boateng, Paul

    Fraser, John

    Boyes, Roland

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bradley, Keith

    Galbraith, Sam

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Galloway, George

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    George, Bruce

    Buckley, George J.

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Caborn, Richard

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gould, Bryan

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Graham, Thomas

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Hardy, Peter

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Cohen, Harry

    Haynes, Frank

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Cousins, Jim

    Henderson, Doug

    Crowther, Stan

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cryer, Bob

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Cummings, John

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Home Robertson, John

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Hood, Jimmy

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    116

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Parry, Robert

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Patchett, Terry

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Pendry, Tom

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Illsley, Eric

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Ingram, Adam

    Prescott, John

    Janner, Greville

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kennedy, Charles

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Randall, Stuart

    Lambie, David

    Redmond, Martin

    Lamond, James

    Reid, Dr John

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Richardson, Jo

    Leighton, Ron

    Robertson, George

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rogers, Allan

    Lewis, Terry

    Rooney, Terence

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Ruddock, Joan

    Loyden, Eddie

    Salmond, Alex

    McAllion, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sheerman, Barry

    McCartney, Ian

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Short, Clare

    McFall, John

    Sillars, Jim

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Skinner. Dennis

    McKelvey, William

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McLeish, Henry

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

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    McMaster, Gordon

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Soley, Clive

    McWilliam, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Madden, Max

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Stott, Roger

    Marek, Dr John

    Strang, Gavin

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Wallace, James

    Martlew, Eric

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Maxton, John

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Meacher, Michael

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Meale, Alan

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Michael, Alun

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wilson, Brian

    Morley, Elliot

    Winnick, David

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Worthington, Tony

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wray, Jimmy

    Mullin, Chris

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Murphy, Paul

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Tellers for the Noes:

    O'Brien, William

    Mrs. Llin Golding and

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    Education (Scotland)
    10.12 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
    That the Testing in Primary Schools (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 2104) dated 24th October 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be revoked.
    I regret that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not with us. I do not know the reason for his absence, and I do not want to make too much of it. This is an important debate with far-reaching consequences, and it is unfortunate that the head of the house, in Conservative terms at least, has decided not to be present.
    The issue has been subjected to a creditable and serious debate, although there have been the odd exceptions. I have a cutting from the Daily Record of 12 April which states that the leader of the Conservative group on Strathclyde regional council, Councillor Fergus Clarkson, when asked to consider the fact that about two thirds of the parents in Strathclyde withdrew their children from the tests, said:
    "What beats me about Glasgow was I didn't think two thirds of parents there were able to write letters."
    That has not done much for the standard of the argument. This is the first debate on the issue in the House and hon. Members will have a chance to express their anxiety and to reflect the concern that is widely felt in their constituencies. I am conscious of the fact that time is not on our side and that the arguments must be concise— perhaps almost in precis form. The Opposition strongly feel that what is happening is a tragedy. National testing for primary 4 and primary 7 pupils is being imposed, grafted on to primary education, in an unnecessary and counter-productive way. That is sad because it is muddying the waters and endangering a great deal of agreement and good will.
    That good will stems from the fact that most of us accept that there is merit in the five-to-14 programme—the Labour party certainly takes that view. We accept that there is both a need for national levels of attainment, and a flow of information, and an important place for continuous assessment and diagnostic testing. There is widespread support for that, but unfortunately it is mirrored by equally widespread opposition to national testing. There is a genuine fear that national testing will distort the curriculum and ultimately lead to league tables within schools and the misapprehension of the worth of schools and the way in which they perform. There is a fear that it is part of a general drift towards seeing education as a commodity that can be manipulated by market forces.
    There is an unfortunate feeling that questions have not been fully answered and that there has been a lack of consultation. There is a feeling, which I share, that it would have been very much wiser to let the five-to-14 programme become properly established and well-bedded into the system before the issue of national testing was addressed, if the Government insisted on addressing it at all. There is resentment of the fact that, of the six working papers in connection with the programme that have been produced, only working paper number 5, dealing with national testing, does not have a consultation period built into it.
    I have put the arguments in shorthand, and I say to the House genuinely that they are not frivolous. I notice that
    118
    there is support for them not only from parents and teachers, but from the educational hierarchy—if those involved do not object to that title. I noticed that in the Glasgow Herald on 7 March, Mr. Ian Collie, director of education of Central region, questioned the educational case and expressed concern about the stress and difficulties that might result from the introduction of a rigid national testing system.
    There is also a fear of a hidden agenda. The Minister may feel, when I say that, that he is being much misunderstood, but I am afraid that the record invites some suspicion. It is interesting that in the MORI poll published in The Sunday Times this weekend, 59 per cent. of parents who said that they voted Tory believed that the introduction of national testing was a preliminary to the return of streaming in our schools. That shows how widespread and non-partisan the fears are, given the record of recent years.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office is perhaps inured to such a position, but on this issue he is a lonely figure. There has not been a great deal of covering fire of authority or quality for his position. There is every reason why he should think again. The teachers' opposition has been sustained not by fringe interests and fringe enthusiasms, but by deeply held and widely based views. Above all, the opposition of parents has shown that they give a massive vote of no confidence to the national testing system as proposed. That striking vote of no confidence is impressive and unambiguous, covering and coming from all regions of the country and all social groupings in the community. The MORI poll showed that by far the largest block of opinion—47 per cent.—was against national testing per se. More interestingly, 80 per cent of those polled were against national testing being a compulsory system built into school administration.
    The polls predicted opposition and the reality far exceeded expectations or fears, depending on which side of the argument the observer took. In every district of Scotland, parents have acted out of conviction by withdrawing their children from the tests. I am told that in Strathclyde, 41,000 out of 53,000 children in the relevant groups have not been tested. In Fife, 5,000 individual letters from parents were received, in a mass test of opinion, and 60 per cent. of the eligible group were withdrawn from testing.
    There is always a little difficulty about the figures and accuracy, but as I understand it from a trawl around the education authorities, and this is confirmed from a number of sources, a clear majority of parents have now withdrawn their children from the primary 4 and primary 7 testing round this year—probably more than 60 per cent. of the eligible group. That is an almost unprecedented happening in my experience and suggests that there is an unease and disquiet that we ignore at our peril.
    Furthermore, it is a breakdown of consensus, a protest, that the Minister would be unwise to ignore. More than any other, the Minister must recognise what has happened as a judgment. To be fair to him, he has championed parent power and argued for a greater role for parents in the formation of education policy. Therefore, it would be unwise, undignified and damaging to his credibility were he now to turn round and defy one of the clearest expressions of parental opinion on an education matter that I can remember in my career. The Minister established school boards to institutionalise and channel parental influence. He now knows that the boards have bitten the

    119
    hand that fed them. They have been largely responsible for focusing and leading the opposition to national testing. Again, that is a clear expression of opinion using the machinery that the Minister said would be of increasing significance and that was set up for that purpose.
    I do not wish my brief contribution to be abrasive, but I urge the Minister to respond to the parental concern that he knows exists and that I have described. Recognition of that fact by the Minister would be in the interests of pupils and our school system. If he will not recognise it, he has a duty to spell out what will happen now. Will he pursue the education authorities and insist that they insist? Is he saying that parental opinion should be ignored in this matter, perhaps forcing some parents who feel strongly enough to withdraw their children from education for the period of the tests? That would have consequences that none of us would want. Does he want to outlaw balloting or other tests of parental opinion on this issue? What sanctions will he apply if he misguidedly goes ahead with the scheme in the current atmosphere? By what authority would they be imposed?
    I genuinely believe, having talked to many parents, that the problems will mount on every side if the Minister persists in what will be an embittering and pointless exercise. I appeal to him to recognise the reality of the situation and to take national testing off the agenda, at least at this stage. He should establish on strong foundations the five-to-14 programme, which commands respect and assent, and build from there. The alternative is confrontation, which is damaging and unnecessary. It is a legacy that no Minister should wish to place on our education system.
    I remind the Minister—I know that he is familiar with the quote as it has been used before—of what he said on 9 May 1989:
    "it would be a failure of good Government if, at the end of the day, we could not ensure that national testing was introduced in an orderly and consistent manner throughout the country." —[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 9 May 1989; c. 1374.]
    On that basis, it is time for him to think again, and I hope that he will show his willingness to do so during this debate.
    10.23 pm
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was kind enough to refer to my comments in Committee in respect of national testing. I recall that he and his colleagues did not vote against the power that we took in that Bill, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) pointed out, to introduce testing.
    Seldom can a measure have been more subject to wilful misrepresentation and misguided hostility than the proposal for national testing in our schools. I am sure that the House will agree that some testing is beneficial for individual pupils and their parents and for those concerned with judging the effectiveness of schools. Children's strengths and weaknesses need to be diagnosed and assessed so that appropriate steps can be taken. Parents want to know how their children are developing against a broadly agreed, objective yardstick. A measure
    120
    of the progress that a school is making with pupils should form an important part of any system of assessing a school's performance.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: How does the Minister, as a parent, know how his child is getting on in the private school in my constituency? Why is my son being compulsorily tested in his primary school in the Borders region, regardless of the wishes of his parents, when private schools are not being tested? What happened to parental choice and how can the Minister call it national testing if privatised schools are left out of it?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman disagreed with my opening remarks. They were taken from "Children Come First", which sets out the Labour party's policy for raising standards in schools. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about my son attending a school in his constituency, but it is right that my children go to independent schools.
    One of the extraordinary features of the regulations is that independent schools are not required under them to implement the testing proposals, but virtually all of them are doing so voluntarily. Independent schools are writing to parents to tell them that they are doing so because they believe that the testing will be of value to the children, to parents and to the education system. I venture to suggest that it is not in that sector that perhaps the greatest need exists for further progress on standards of assessment.
    I said that the House might accept my opening remarks——
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Forsyth: If I might make some progress, I shall give way.
    The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) was quoted in The Scotsman on 27 March. He was explaining a challenge that was put to him to explain why he was whistling a different tune on primary testing from his English counterpart, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The report said:
    "'I start from the Scottish system', explained Mr. Worthington. 'Jack Straw starts from the English one. One of the advantages of living in two worlds is that you can look at the chaos and muddle that is the English system. What Jack Straw was saying was that he wished that he could get some rigour into the English system.'"
    That was in March. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, prior to our previous debate on this issue, was quoted in the same newspaper. The article reads:
    "On the eve of a major Commons clash over Scottish education policy today, Tony Worthington, Labour's Front Bench spokesman, confirmed that the party is in favour of making the results of pupil testing known to parents; identifying schools which fail to match the standards of those with similar intakes."
    The hon. Gentleman was putting forward a policy, which the hon. Member for Garscadden has just repudiated, of making league tables of schools. I ask the hon. Member for Garscadden whether the Labour party supports national testing. It is no good saying that testing is all right in one part of the country but not in another. Testing either has a place in education and assessment practice or it has not.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn, who is the Labour party's education spokesman, seems to be clear on the matter. It is fair to say, however, that what the hon. Gentleman was saying in 1987 was different from what he

    121
    is saying now. He was saying in 1987 of the Government's policy of compulsory testing—I quote from The Times of 29 October——
    "Under the guise of higher standards, the Bill"—
    that is the Government's Bill—
    "will label children as failures at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16, impose selection and segregate children by class and by race."
    That is what the hon. Gentleman said in 1987, but in 1990, according to The Times, he mused:
    "Does a parent want to know every four years or rather more frequently?"
    He then said that annual tests might be better. The article in The Times added:
    "Nor is Mr, Straw any longer much troubled by the publication of test data, which he once said would set child against child. Labour would ensure that a child's results were released to its parents, would sample figures to establish whether national standards in the three Rs were rising or falling, and would adjust test scores for social class so that parents could compare schools. Such an approach would stop schools from citing deprivation among their intake as 'an alibi for failure', he said. 'That is the case for it. It is not just a crutch, it is so you can be tougher on schools.'"
    I ask the hon. Member for Garscadden how it is possible for the Labour party to be in favour of national testing and more information for parents about the three Rs in England but not in Scotland. What have Scottish parents done to deserve the Labour party's policy which would deny them that information?
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I should be grateful if the Minister would address himself to the educational matters in the debate. When he considers the national picture of standards, has he placed in context the report published in 1989 on the assessment of achievement? The report showed that standards in reading in particular were not only remaining stable but improving. The Minister already has a national picture, so why is it important to him to implement this legislation? The organisation which produced the report will test primary 4, primary 7 and S2 every three years at the request of the Scottish Office Education Department. The tests would be undertaken by independent surveyors.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady is right. I have extended that programme. If she were being fair, she would also point out that the same programme showed a decline in standards of achievement in mathematics. But she confuses two purposes. One is to find the overall pattern of performance in the school. The other, which is the purpose of national testing, is to provide parents with the information about the individual performance of their children to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Forsyth: No, I should like to make some progress.
    I asked the hon. Member for Garscadden to explain the curious schism in Labour's policy north and south of the border. The only conclusion that I have been able to reach is that north of the border the Educational Institute of Scotland told the Labour party to oppose the tests, just as when the EIS told it to oppose school boards, it did so. When the EIS changed its mind, the Labour party changed its mind on school boards.
    Mr. Dewar: The Minister has been reduced to insults, which suggests that he does not have much confidence in his case.
    122
    I made it clear in my opening remarks that we were in favour of diagnostic testing, continuous assessment, improved communication and the passage of information between parents and schools. All that can be achieved within the five-to-14 programme, which I welcome and on which I congratulate the Scottish Office Education Department. But we have said consistently that in the Scottish educational tradition—we believe in devolution and we practise what we preach—it is not sensible to enforce on a system that does not deem it necessary and on parents who do not want it a rigid national testing system, with all the bitterness and difficulties that will arise from it. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Member for Moray points out, the hon. Gentleman did not vote in Committee against national testing. He argued that he was not opposed to the principle. His hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, Labour's education spokesman, seems to take a different view. The hon. Member for Garscadden is being fair. He argues that the position is different in Scotland. I have looked at some of the material produced by Labour-controlled education authorities in Scotland on testing, particularly that produced in Central region. The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Ian Collie, the director of education in Fife. Both authorities have campaigned against the proposals.
    I asked the inspectorate to look at the maths tests for primary 7, which were being set in Central region. What it reported to me is important. It said:
    "it should be noted that the desire to scrutinise standards came from the headteachers themselves and that this was to be done at P3 and P5, as well as P7. Neither these headteachers nor the education authority consider teachers' own continuous assessment to be sufficient. The tests scrutinised here are those from primary 7. So far as we understand, the region has not yet produced those for primary 3 and primary 5."
    Those are the inspectorate's conclusions, not mine. It is interesting that it compared the tests with the national tests which the hon. Member for Garscadden has repudiated. In brief, its conclusions were as follows:
    "The national tests are directly related to nationally agreed and published attainment targets. The national tests include important additional aspects of the mathematics curriculum, such as problem-solving and enquiry. They reflect a balance across the different aspects of mathematics and are therefore more valid. They are contextualised in line with contemporary good practice in teaching methematics. They take less time than the Central Region units and can be administered over a longer period, thus enabling teachers to fit the units into the rhythm of classwork. They are more attractively presented and better in their lay-out."
    Central region and other authorities have been running their own tests, which are inferior to the national tests, but are certainly not diagnostic.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose——
    Mr. Forsyth: They are as old-fashioned as the tests that the hon. Member and I sat at school, and I give way to him.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister accept that there is widespread support for the quality of the testing material? He knows perfectly well that that is not the point at issue. Will he explain to the House what happened to his conviction that parental choice should be the determining factor? How does he define parental choice, how will he take it into account and what do parents have to do to convince him that they do not want his national test?
    Mr. Forsyth: What happened to the hon. Gentleman's conviction that parents should be excluded from curricular and professional matters, which he argued forcibly during the passage of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988? Has he now changed his position? The hon. Gentleman argued in Committee and sought to persuade me to make the School Boards (Scotland) Act off limits for parents, as far as curricular and professional matters were concerned—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me to define parental choice. If the position of Opposition Members has now changed, and they wish the Government to consider extending parental choice to curricular areas and to extend the powers of school boards in that area, of course I should be very happy to give that consideration. However, that is a completely——
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Forsyth: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    I would like to return to the argument about Central region, because, while the hon. Member for Garscadden and his colleagues in local government were preventing this leaflet, which gave information about the testing proposals, from being distributed to parents, one of the arguments was that the leaflet was breaking new ground. It was positive evidence that testing was the 11-plus in disguise, because it contained the sentence:
    "The results will help secondary schools to plan each child's further progress in education."
    Therefore, you can imagine my surprise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in discovering that Central region, with the mathematics tests that I have just described, asks its head teachers
    "to pass the whole script and the results to the pupil's secondary school on transfer."
    A Labour-controlled education authority, which is not prepared to put out a leaflet because it might result in tests being passed on to the secondary school, is running tests that are the same, and telling parents that the tests are educationally invalid.
    The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that the quality of the tests was not in doubt. He is right. Even the Labour activist who speaks for the Lothian Parents Action Group was quoted in The Scotsman on 23 January as saying:
    "The actual tests are therefore very user friendly and answer many of the objections related to their impact on children. The different levels are designed to take into account children's different abilities."
    That is right. So, if there is nothing wrong with the test materials, what is the objection? I suspect that the objection is that the idea came from the Government and not from the Opposition.
    Mr. John McFall rose——
    Mr. Forsyth: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have given way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] If the hon. Gentleman allows me to make some progress I shall give way to him.
    The reason why the test materials are good is that they have been written by practising teachers in Scottish schools. The evidence is that they are enjoyed by the children. Where no fuss of a political nature has been made, the tests have been carried out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members doubt me I can give them evidence. The Chief Inspector of Schools has just returned
    124
    from the Western Isles—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) is here —where he visited schools. He has reported back:
    "On testing one was left wondering what all the fuss is about. In each case the head teacher, assisted by someone from the authority, had discussed testing with the school board. Individual parents' questions had been answered as they arose but testing had deliberately not been given a high profile; for example, there had been no mass meetings of parents. As a result, in all three schools, testing was proceeding in orderly fashion, untrammelled by any of the emotional response and posturing by teachers and parents evident elsewhere. For example, in Stornoway primary, with some 170 plus pupils due to be tested across P4 and P7, only one parent had asked that their child be not tested and their opposition had swiftly dissipated following a discussion with the head teacher."
    The same picture can be seen in the Borders.
    It should also be recognised that there is a certain correlation between some of the activities that have been going on in some education authorities and parental reluctance to become involved in the tests. The words and actions of some teachers, head teachers and even education authority personnel in recent weeks have been nothing short of scandalous:
    "My child is dragged out each morning and asked where his withdrawal slip is—you're the only one not handed in" [Interruption.] The hon. Member may think that that is funny. That was in a telephone call from a parent in the Dumbarton division of Straythclyde:
    "I've been told that if I insist on testing he'll be put at a desk in a corridor to take the test."
    That was another telephone call to the Department.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: That is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
    Mr. Forsyth: Since when has reporting parents' complaints to the House of Commons been scraping the bottom of the barrel? If the hon. Gentleman had any integrity and any belief in parental choice——
    Mr. McFall: The Minister mentioned Dumbarton. I am as concerned professionally as the Minister in that regard. If there were anything wrong, I should take it up. But it should at least be incumbent on the Minister to listen to hon. Members and organise a debate on a proper intellectual basis rather than making snide comments.
    Mr. Forsyth: Let me quote further:
    "Within 10 minutes it was obvious he was to advise parents to vote against national testing".
    That is in a letter from a parent in Tayside region, talking about a presentation to a school board by a directed official.
    "I expected to be given both sides of the argument but what I and the rest of the parents got was nothing short of propaganda".
    That was from a letter from a parent in the Renfrew division of Strathclyde. It is insupportable that teachers and education authority personnel should behave in that way. It is totally unprofessional, dishonest and an abuse of a position of trust.
    Mr. Dewar rose——
    Mr. Forsyth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to say that he agrees with me.
    Mr. Dewar: I do not know anything about the two individual cases to which the Minister has referred. If there have been abuses, they should of course be investigated;

    125
    but I think that there is a much more important question. Is the Minister deducing from the alleged abuses that the opposition of the parents is sham and fake?
    Mr. Forsyth: No, indeed. I am deducing that in parts of the country where the education authorities and teachers have explained to parents what is involved the testing is proceeding without difficulty; it is where opposition has been politically led that there have been particular difficulties in schools. The hon. Gentleman may scoff. Does he agree with the education convener of Tayside education authority, who said in the 2 April edition of The Dundee Courier and Advertiser—an excellent newspaper:
    "It is becoming apparent now that there may well be exceptions where youngsters may go untested because of industrial action and logistical problems … I can see no moral justification for the authority being over-vigilant in its pursuit of those teachers."?
    Where is parental choice now? Parental choice for the Labour party seems to be a one-way street. If parents choose to have their children tested, the Labour party supports those whose refuse to allow the tests to be carried out. That is what Councillor Rolf is saying. Would the hon. Member for Garscadden care to confirm what Labour policy is? Will the Labour party support the Government in taking the view that teachers ought to implement tests where parents wish them to be carried out because they are serious about parental choice? Parental choice is not a one-way street; it does not extend just to what the EIS thinks parents should choose.
    Mr. Dewar: I have never supported a teachers' boycott, or said that authorities should not implement the tests. The point that has arisen, however, results from a genuine surge of opinion from parents against the tests—not politically motivated; most of the parents whom I have met have not been in a political setting, and I do not know their political views. But I know the strength of their opinions, and I think it specious and dangerous special pleading for the Minister to delude himself that this is a sham and fake opposition not built on a genuine conviction and interest in the welfare of the children concerned.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that he takes the view that a boycott should not be supported. Therefore, I take it that he will fully support the Government when they take action under the regulations against education authorities that do not accede to parents' requests that their children should be tested in accordance with their wishes. If I have misrepresented the position, the hon. Gentleman is free to come back.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose——
    Mr. Forsyth: I have already given way to the hon. Lady. As she will probably want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I ought to wind up my remarks.
    Education authorities should be in no doubt about our determination to ensure that parents get the information to which they are entitled about their children's performance in the three Rs. The five-to-14 programme, which the Opposition opposed when we first introduced it, and that was the subject of a degree of scepticism, to put it mildly, will ensure that for each subject for each year in primary school levels of attainment are defined and that levels of achievement are reported to parents on the report card. Testing is limited to the three R subjects in order to
    126
    provide objective standards by which to confirm teachers' judgments. The three Rs are important; they are the grounding in the basics that are the key to the wider curriculum.
    Opposition Members have got themselves in a fix. They support testing south of the border, but they are against it north of the border. They have had to rely on a campaign of misinformation of parents in order to stir up opposition to the tests. When parents discover how, once again, they have been misled by the Labour party—just as on access to schools, just as on choice in education, just as on school boards—the Labour party will change its position. I believe that the tests will be implemented and will play an important part in raising standards in our schools.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The note on the Order Paper makes it clear that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew the special attention of the House to the instrument in its report since it thought that the intra vires of the regulations was in doubt. The report is in the Vote Office. The Standing Orders of the House place an obligation, if not clearly, at least by implication, on the Minister to respond to the note on the Order Paper by making known the Government's view on the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chaired.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Minister may seek to catch my eye in order to respond to the debate which I hope will now ensue. Perhaps he will have regard to what has just been said. However, the House will be anxious to turn to the substance of the regulations rather than to the point that the hon. Gentleman has just raised. In the obvious circumstances, may I appeal for very brief speeches, please?
    10.47 pm
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: Shortly after this Tory Government came to power, I was appointed to a Standing Committee that considered one of the Bills relating to Scottish education. I can remember distinctly that the great Tory rallying cry then was, "Power to the parents" and "Parental choice." Specific reference is made in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 not just to the desirability but to the obligation to educate pupils according to the wishes of their parents. It is somewhat ironic that the Government are now trying to foist upon pupils a national system of testing when, according to all accounts and to all the available evidence, the vast majority of Scottish parents oppose national testing.
    There is also widespread opposition among the teaching profession to national testing to the extent that many teachers rightly have refused to conduct the tests. That could lead to disruption in many schools, on a scale unprecedented since the disruption that the Government provoked a few years ago during the teachers' pay dispute.
    The Minister ought to have the humility to recognise that teachers, as trained professionals, are in a better position than are Government Ministers to decide what is the best form of assessment for pupils. I do not know of any teacher who is absolutely opposed in principle to assessment. I believe that most, if not all, teachers are in favour of some form of diagnostic testing and continuous assessment. But national testing, as proposed in the regulations, will put enormous pressure on teachers simply

    127
    to teach to the test—leading to distortion of the curriculum and to neglect of the development of many of the other talents of pupils.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the hon. Gentleman, as a former teacher, refer the House to any systematic assessment of achievement at P4 or P7 level? Is there any means of making comparisons among local education authorities throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Canavan: I do not think that the hon. Gentlemen knows much, if anything, about Scottish education. Scottish colleges of education and many other educational bodies could provide material suitable for diagnostic testing and continuous assessment—material that has far more credibility in the teaching profession in Scotland than has the scheme that it being imposed by a Minister who, I understand, has no education experience whatsoever.
    It is almost incredible that the Minister has managed to find nearly £1 million to administer and advertise the scheme when he cannot find a penny for extra learning support. Indeed, it is arguable that, as a result of this scheme, less learning support will be available to many pupils. The simple reason is that much teaching time will be taken up by administration of the tests, and less will be devoted to actual teaching. It is sheer arrogance to ignore the professional opinion of teachers and the wishes of parents. As has been said, foisting this scheme on local education authority schools while fee-paying schools are given some freedom of choice is an example of double standards.
    I want to devote my remaining remarks to what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described as a hidden agenda. I suspect that there is more to the system of national testing than meets the eye. My remarks will be based not on political prejudice but on my experience as a teacher in both primary and secondary schools in Scotland—experience that goes back to the 1960s, before the introduction of comprehensive education in many areas. At that time, in Scottish education, there was almost an obsession with formal testing, including IQ tests, VRQ tests and the qualifying examination, which in some areas was called the control examination. This obsession was such that some people involved in education thought that, on the basis of the evidence of one test, they could virtually predict a child's future when that child was 11 years old.
    Of course, the post-test division of children into different categories, different groups, different classes, sometimes different schools, and certainly vastly differing education environments providing very different opportunities helped to ensure fulfilment and reinforcement of what the test was designed to predict. The result was that many pupils—in some schools, the majority of pupils—were written off as failures. Many teachers of that era, including myself, can think of former pupils who, despite having been written off at the age of 11 or 12, managed to beat the system and went on to a successful career at college or university.
    Many of us raised questions at that time. The most basic was that, if those who managed to beat the system were the exception, how many more were lost in an education system that was unnecessarily divisive, unfair
    128
    and talent-wasting, because at that time there was no equality of educational opportunity? If the House accepts the regulations, I fear that the Government will be encouraged to use or abuse the tests to turn the clock back and thereby to deprive countless young people of the educational opportunity which is their birthright. I therefore ask the House to reject the regulations.
    10.56 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: There seems to be general agreement that the test material which has been prepared by teachers is good. There is also some agreement that for some time there has been a problem with pupils leaving school who are not as well educated as they should be, because they are unable to apply the three Rs effectively at work. That holds them back at a critical stage in their life, and some people never recover from that impediment.
    There is also some agreement about the fact that many of the pupils who fall into that category are not backward or dim. The system has failed them. We must ask ourselves whether, if the system is failing quality individuals who have not been able to emerge as they should have done, we should look carefully at the system. The tests have been accepted as being of quality, so the argument seems to be about their application. It is interesting that the Labour party south of the border seems to agree with national testing, but that the Labour party north of the border does not.
    I happen to agree with my hon. Friend the Minister —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will now explain why. I have written to him on behalf of parents in my constituency who were very unhappy about the way in which the matter was explained to them in the schools. They said that it was biased——
    Mr. John McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. I am talking about schools in my constituency -[HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"] I will name them if necessary.
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman will know that 205 meetings have been addressed across Tayside by education officials, not by councillors. The only councillors who have turned up at the meetings have been Tory councillors who have praised the education officials for their unbiased, knowledgeable and professional approach at the meetings. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the slur against education officials in Tayside?
    Mr. Walker: My comments referred to the letters that I have received from my constituents about the way in which officials have presented the case in schools. They said that they were biased. I am explaining to the House —and I thought that the debate was about this—the views of parents. Parents in my constituency who have said categorically and clearly that they wish their children to be tested are now asking my hon. Friend the Minister what he will do about the education authority.
    I now come to the councillors and the Labour administration. I have not mentioned them until now; only the hon. Member for Dundee, East has done so. I will do so now. What about the Labour administration?
    Mr. Tom Clarke rose——
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is not from north Tayside.
    What about Mery Rolf, who stated categorically that he would not implement the law? That is effectively what he said and was another example of councillors failing to honour the legal obligations placed on them by Parliament. At what point do councillors supersede the views of Parliament?
    The Labour party says that it believes in parental choice, but it cannot have only the Educational Institute of Scotland version of choice, which is Hobson's choice—do it our way or not at all. That is not acceptable to parents in my constituency. Many schools in my constituency, particularly primary schools, are very good. I should be happy for the system to show clearly that our good teachers are doing an effective job. The problem is the teachers and others in schools who know that they would not measure up under a testing system that would show clearly where they are failing.
    I vividly remember the debates on school boards. It is humbug and hypocrisy for Opposition Members to say that they believe in school boards, because they did not when the legislation was proposed. When the EIS makes a pay claim, it will say that testing will require more money to do the job that we thought it had been doing. Diagnostic testing has considerable educational value, but it cannot give parents information based on national criteria. It is interesting that the Opposition, in their attempts to support the EIS, are calling for the support of parents. Parents in my constituency believe in choice and support school boards—I am pleased to say that school boards are functioning well in my constituency—and I want them to be given their right of choice, as they have demanded.
    11.2 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is a bit rich for the Minister and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to lecture the Opposition about parental choice. The Minister has consistently argued that he wants to increase parental involvement and to take parents' views into account.
    The Minister has failed to persuade the majority of parents that the national test is a desirable or acceptable addition to the education system. In the circumstances, he should at least withdraw it until he has had an opportunity to obtain their support. He should not be imposing it against their will.
    The Minister did not answer my question nor explain how he intends to determine the parental view, how he intends to consult parents and whether he will accept that parents are entitled to differ from him. He should respond to their wishes rather than spend their money on promoting a particularly inappropriate advertising campaign to change their minds.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and many other hon. Members have said that the material that has been produced for testing, and the guidance assessment, is valuable. I have not met a teacher or anybody involved in education who has stated a different view. The Minister must know that the objection is not that that useful additional information is being imposed but that, in the context of a five-to-14 programme, we are suddenly imposing a primary 4 and a primary 7 test—sudden death testing.
    130
    The Minister has said a number of times that testing is not a matter of passing or failing. He then said that he might find money for remedial education for those who do not come up to the mark. This is a test that a child cannot pass, but can fail. That understandably gives parents considerable cause for anxiety. The test is not genuinely to seek out how to improve the performance of an individual teacher, nor is it centred on the interests of the child.
    The Minister must recognise that parents want to know how their child is performing generally. That cannot be achieved by insisting that the child sits a test over a six-week period in primary 4 and that the teacher must decide several months in advance at what level to submit each child. The teacher cannot later rescind that or change that decision, unless he orders several different tests. If the child does not perform to that level, he cannot be resubmitted at a later date either at a lower or higher level. That is what most people would understand as a genuine addition to curriculum and assessment. The Minister's proposals cut right across the whole five-to-14 programme.
    Will the Minister now acknowledge that, by expressing their extreme anger and taking positive action, parents have in practical terms effectively defeated the pilot scheme? In reality, the overwhelming majority of children in Scottish schools have not been submitted for this national test. Can the Minister tell the House how many children have been tested, or at least report how many have been tested, at the end of the period? I understand that, in nearly all regions, parents are being told that they do not have to submit their children to this test if they do not wish to do so.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned the Secretary of State's absence, but the Minister did not say why that was. Perhaps a reason why he is not here is that he would be embarrassed to have to confront the results of a referendum conducted in Dumfries and Galloway, which is his constituency. Parents had to answer either yes or no to the simple question whether they were in favour of national testing. The response was overwhelming with almost 90 per cent. of the parents of all children responding. The response was 66 per cent. no, 34 per cent. yes. If that is not a sufficiently clear, decisive majority against the Government's national test in the Secretary of State's own constituency, I do not know what needs to be done to prove to him that parents do not wish the test to be imposed.
    I agree with the Minister to some extent on one matter. It would be appropriate for teachers who have not co-operated with the test to suspend action because parents are doing the job for them. Parents have won the argument and the point has been made. I make a direct appeal to teachers to accept that they have won. In those circumstances, the Minister should agree not to press any further action against them.
    Great anger has been aroused and many parents have asked teachers not to impose the test. Most local authorities have found ways to co-operate with parents and ensure that the test is not imposed against their wishes, in part because this is a grey area of the law. Those parents who want the national test should be entitled to submit their children to it, but where at least two thirds do not the Minister has wholly failed to convince us of the justification of his proposals.
    It is not good enough for the Minister to suggest that he is interested in the views of parents, but only when they

    131
    support his particular prejudice. Where they have overwhelmingly, clearly and unequivocally stated that they do not want the national tests provided by him, he should do the honourable thing and accept that he must abandon the pilot scheme. He should sit down with parents and teachers at the Scottish Office Education Department and discuss how the material and progress made can be properly built into the curriculum, with the full support of teachers and parents, to meet the real interests of children.
    11.9 pm
    Mr. Mike Watson: The classic mistake made by the Minister in his doomed attempt to turn the clock back in Scottish education was that of bad timing. We do not need this debate tonight as we should have had it in November when the regulations were introduced.
    The timing is also wrong in that, three quarters of the way through the testing period, the regulations are meaningless because three quarters of pupils have not been tested. We no longer need the regulations because long before they are due to come into play in March next year, they will have been swept out of existence, along with the Government who introduced them.
    Scottish parents must be commended on their determination to stand firm in the face of Scottish Office attempts to impose an irrelevant and unwanted system of testing that will serve no useful purpose. I also pay tribute to the spontaneity of the action of the many parent groups that sprang up when the testing regulations were introduced. Those groups were in direct contrast to the £250,000 that the Scottish Office spent on the advertising campaign to launch those regulations. A further £750,000 was spent on administering the tests. Such expenditure is shameful and the Minister should have found additional resources for learning support. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about improving standards and assisting pupils with learning difficulties, the well-established system of learning support is the means by which to achieve that.
    Regional councils have been forced to cut educational budgets, and in some regions teachers are facing compulsory redundancy. It is a scandal that £1 million has been wasted on the futile national testing exercise. It is a classic example of a wasted opportunity. It would not be so bad if it were only the Government's popularity that had suffered as a result of the testing, but our young people's education has been the loser.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has already outlined the extent of the opposition throughout Scotland to the testing. I am pleased to say that a number of representatives of the parents' coalition are in the Gallery to hear the debate. Sooner or later, the Minister will be obliged to heed the views of parents and teachers. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council has articulated the views of parents and teachers, and the teaching unions, particularly the Educational Institute of Scotland, have opposed the scheme. Why does the Minister continue to ignore the views of such groups? Surely he cannot deny that parents and teachers represent their constituencies.
    Time is restricted and I simply want to say that teachers, parents and the Opposition do not oppose
    132
    diagnostic testing. However, we all oppose the ill-conceived, ill-prepared and ill-explained national testing scheme. It will not survive, nor will the Minister or the Government who introduced it.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that other hon. Members will follow the hon. Gentleman's example.
    11.12 pm
    Sir Hector Monro: It is the greatest of pities that, whenever we discuss one of the most important aspects of life in Scotland, it always becomes a political football. Why we cannot discuss education without making it so important politically is beyond my comprehension. That has always been so, even 20 years ago when, for better or worse, I was Minister responsible for education. Then we had problems because of a lack of accommodation, shortage of teachers and facilities. Now, the education system in Scotland is in infinitely better shape. We have adequate teachers and the pupil-teacher ratio is much lower than ever before. It is a pity that we do not appreciate those favourable circumstances.
    When I was Minister, the Opposition opposed raising the school leaving age to 16. In the past, they opposed the TVEI—the technical and vocational education initiative —and the school boards. They have been opposed to almost every progressive thought of the Scottish Education Department. If the system of testing had been called continuous assessment, I dare say that the Opposition would not have raised their head.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It is not continuous assessment.
    Sir Hector Monro: Yes it is, in effect. That is what teaching is all about. Bearing in mind that the testing scheme was approved by the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum, and that the tests were developed by teachers, I find it difficult to understand why the Opposition have such a rooted objection to them.
    So far, no one has mentioned the fact that this is a pilot scheme. As such, it should be given a fair run and conducted as flexibly as possible in March and April of this year to see how it goes and to learn lessons from it. In that way, it can be improved and we can determine whether to proceed with it. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Opposition, including the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists, are not prepared to try some progressive ideas in Scotland, and to find out whether they work. If the scheme does not work, we can think again.
    The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) talked about Dumfries and Galloway. One can make anything out of statistics. He said that 6,854 children's parents said no and that 3,529 said yes. It appears, however, that about 2,000 children's parents—I cannot get firm figures on this from the authorities—said nothing at all. So only marginally more than 50 per cent. voted against. The other 48 or 49 per cent. of children have every right to be tested, if they want to be. It is wrong to spend so much time trying to prove that the vast majority do not want testing when that majority is, after all, pretty marginal.
    What will happen to local authorities that do not carry out their legal obligations? In Dumfries and Galloway, the education authority has voted by 10 to seven to give parents the right to opt out. What, therefore, is the council's legal position? Does the matter have to be put to

    133
    the full council? What happens if the decision is upheld by the full council, even though the council is setting out to break the law of the land? Will the law be upheld for parents who want their children tested? Presumably, about 4,000 parents in Dumfries and Galloway want their children tested, and they are entitled to know where they stand.
    Many of us are deeply anxious about illiteracy and the fact that we are short of statistics about it. Do all our children have a fair chance of being educated to a standard of literacy and numeracy that will enable them to go into further education? If we do not know the statistics, it is difficult to know how important the tests are in showing up levels of literacy——
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Get on with it.
    Sir Hector Monro: There is no point in the hon. Lady champing at the bit: she is not going to get into the debate anyway.
    We shall not make much progress in raising standards of education in Scotland—the whole objective of the testing system—if there is bickering between the Government and authorities. We should all concentrate on one aspect alone—raising the quality of education throughout our primary and secondary schools.
    11.19 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although there is a great deal that I wish to debate, of necessity I must curtail my speech. It is a tragedy that a matter of great importance to the Scottish education system has been compressed into such a short debate. That surely spells out more strongly than ever the case for a Scottish Parliament in which we could address such issues, or at least a Scottish Select Committee in which we could debate Scottish education.
    The Minister's speech in Committee on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, reported in columns 1373–74 of the Official Report of the First Standing Scottish Committee, now rings extremely hollow because he said that he hoped that he would be able to implement national testing with support from all quarters and that he would be able to introduce it without resorting to legislation. It is clear from all the opinion polls in Scotland that there is widespread condemnation of aspects of the suggested testing. That condemnation was voiced by teachers and parents and by no less a figure than Ian Morris, the former chief inspector of primary schools, who said in The Times Educational Supplement that the grounds were "educationally unsound" because
    "the scheme of national testing currently advocated is reductionist and a product of structuralism."
    Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
    I wish to pose three brief questions to the Minister. He spoke about the possibility of action being taken against teachers who would not implement the tests. Will he spell out exactly what kind of action he has in mind? Secondly, what is the amount of the additional funding for learning support? In answer to my previous questions, he said that when working paper No. 4 on assessment had completed its consultation process he would be able to advise us on the amount of additional funding to be provided for learning support and diagnostic testing. Finally, when will the booklet on reporting from the review and development group emerge? That is a critical part of the jigsaw that the Minister is trying to complete.
    134
    The debate has not given us enough time to address the education aspects of this legislation. Scottish teachers and parents will be sad about the fact that we could not devote more time to this matter.
    11.23 pm
    Mr. Tony Worthington: It has taken nearly six months to have this debate. That is regrettable, but one of the great advantages of the delay is that it has given us the opportunity to debate the issue on the basis of fact rather than theory. The fact is that where parents have had a choice they have overwhelmingly rejected the tests and the thinking behind them. I commend those ordinary parents from across the political spectrum and from all parts of Scotland who have spontaneously organised to say that they do not want the tests.
    We have seen the consequences of pushing the law beyond a reasonable consensus. In 1988 the Government's consultation paper on testing produced 1,000 responses. Lothian Parent Action Group found that 3 per cent. were in favour of the Government's proposals and the Church of Scotland education committee found that 2 per cent. were in favour. Nevertheless, the Government went ahead.
    On this issue as on others, the Labour party greatly stresses the importance of obeying the law, and it has never deviated from the argument that there is a duty on the local authorities to test. There is no doubt about that.
    Everything that parents and local authorities have done has been with legal advice, which has been that it was within parents' power to withdraw their children from the tests. The Government have not produced anything against that. The legal advice given by Lothian, Strathclyde and local authorities generally shows that parents have the power to withdraw their children.
    The tragic factor in this issue is that there is so much consensus and agreement that would improve standards in Scottish primary schools and improve the quality of information available to parents. We support the five-to-14 programme.
    There is agreement that there needs to be continuous assessment and the setting of high standards. There is agreement that much better quality information needs to go to homes, and that the assessment of an achievement programme is an important element.
    However, everyone has seen through the Minister of State on the subject of choice. He has promulgated the importance of parental choice up and down the country, but on the important issue—where we agree that parents should have a choice in law over the tests—will the Minister unambiguously give choice to the parents who have withdrawn their children?
    All over the country, there has been massive rejection of the tests. In the city of Glasgow nearly 80 per cent. of parents have withdrawn their children, saying that they are against the tests. The other 20 per cent. are not for the tests but include those who have said nothing.
    The Minister claims support from parents on the basis of an NVA survey, but the man in charge of the research, John McBeth, said that primary national testing does not have majority parental support. Parents are keen on tests that have information for diagnostic purposes, but not ones that label their children for the rest of their school lives.

    135
    A week last Sunday, the MORI poll in The Sunday Times—the "Chester Street Bugle", the Tory party house magazine—showed that 80 per cent. of parents in Scotland believe that there should be a choice allowing their children not to do the tests. If the Minister had any sense, he would abandon the tests that have already been abandoned by the parents. There is no question but that the Labour party will abandon the tests. Will the Minister see sense and abandon them?
    Mr. Michael Forsyth rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave withheld.
    11.27 pm
    Mr. Thomas Graham: I am 47 years old, but I can remember the day when the house master read out results to the school classroom and three or four young girls broke their hearts because they did not get the marks needed for further education. That is the fate to which the Minister is consigning our children.
    In my constituency, most of the primary schools have clearly rejected the Government's proposals. In one of the primary schools, the votes for testing were 40, against testing were 86, so 67 per cent. of the school's parents were totally opposed to the testing. In another school, nearly 70 per cent. of the parents were opposed to the national testing.
    This issue is similar to the poll tax. The Government do not listen to the men and women in the country, who vote to bring in trash such as the Government. A Government who do not listen to the ordinary men and women are not fit to govern this country. National testing should be stopped now.
    11.29 pm
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have not heard the Opposition's spokesmen explain why they oppose testing. We did not hear from the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milnagavie (Mr. Worthington), who has teaching experience, how the Opposition would monitor assessment. I heard something similar to the arguments advanced by the Opposition's spokesmen before the William Tyndale primary school disaster in inner London, when everyone said that continuous assessment worked. It was not until two thirds of the children had been withdrawn from the school that the education authority introduced any changes.
    The education authority in London used to welcome every Scottish teacher because Scottish teachers had the reputation of being interested in achievement. That was when we had a Labour-controlled education authority. No doubt, it was similar to the ones that we have heard about, which will test——
    It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [22 March]:—
    The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 251.

    Division No. 110]

    [11.30 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Hardy, Peter

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Allen, Graham

    Haynes, Frank

    Anderson, Donald

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Henderson, Doug

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Hinchliffe, David

    Ashton, Joe

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Home Robertson, John

    Barron, Kevin

    Hood, Jimmy

    Battle, John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Beith, A. J.

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Benton, Joseph

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Illsley, Eric

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Ingram, Adam

    Blunkett, David

    Kennedy, Charles

    Boateng, Paul

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Boyes, Roland

    Lambie, David

    Bradley, Keith

    Lamond, James

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Leighton, Ron

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Lewis, Terry

    Buckley, George J.

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Caborn, Richard

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Callaghan, Jim

    Loyden, Eddie

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    McAllion, John

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    McCartney, Ian

    Canavan, Dennis

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    McFall, John

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    McKelvey, William

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    McLeish, Henry

    Cohen, Harry

    Maclennan, Robert

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Cousins, Jim

    McNamara, Kevin

    Crowther, Stan

    McWilliam, John

    Cryer, Bob

    Madden, Max

    Cummings, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Marek, Dr John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Darling, Alistair

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Martlew, Eric

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

    Maxton, John

    Dewar, Donald

    Meacher, Michael

    Dixon, Don

    Meale, Alan

    Doran, Frank

    Michael, Alun

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Eadie, Alexander

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Morley, Elliot

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Fearn, Ronald

    Mullin, Chris

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Murphy, Paul

    Flannery, Martin

    Nellist, Dave

    Flynn, Paul

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Foster, Derek

    O'Brien, William

    Fraser, John

    O'Neill, Martin

    Fyfe, Maria

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Galbraith, Sam

    Parry, Robert

    Galloway, George

    Patchett, Terry

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Pendry, Tom

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Pike, Peter L.

    George, Bruce

    Prescott, John

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Radice, Giles

    Gould, Bryan

    Randall, Stuart

    Graham, Thomas

    Redmond, Martin

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Reid, Dr John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Richardson, Jo

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Robertson, George

    Grocott, Bruce

    Rogers, Allan

    137

    Rooney, Terence

    Wallace, James

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Salmond, Alex

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Short, Clare

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Sillars, Jim

    Wilson, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

    Worthington, Tony

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

    Wray, Jimmy

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Soley, Clive

    Spearing, Nigel

    Tellers for the Ayes

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

    Strang, Gavin

    Mr. Ken Eastham.

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Favell, Tony

    Alexander, Richard

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Allason, Rupert

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Amess, David

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Amos, Alan

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Arbuthnot, James

    Forman, Nigel

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Ashby, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Atkinson, David

    Franks, Cecil

    Baldry, Tony

    Freeman, Roger

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    French, Douglas

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fry, Peter

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gale, Roger

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Benyon,W.

    Gill, Christopher

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gorst, John

    Boswell, Tim

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gregory, Conal

    Bowis, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Grist, Ian

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Ground, Patrick

    Brazier, Julian

    Grylls, Michael

    Bright, Graham

    Hague, William

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

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Burns, Simon

    Hannam, John

    Burt, Alistair

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

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Harris, David

    Cash, William

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Churchill, Mr

    Hayward, Robert

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Cran, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Hill, James

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

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Holt, Richard

    Day, Stephen

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David

    Dover, Den

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Hunter, Andrew

    Eggar, Tim

    Irvine, Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Jack, Michael

    Evennett, David

    Janman, Tim

    Fallon, Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    138

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Key, Robert

    Rowe, Andrew

    Knapman, Roger

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Knox, David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Latham, Michael

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Shelton, Sir William

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Lightbown, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Sims, Roger

    Lord, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Speed, Keith

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Speller, Tony

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Maclean, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Squire, Robin

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Madel, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Steen, Anthony

    Mans, Keith

    Stern, Michael

    Maples, John

    Stevens, Lewis

    Marland, Paul

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Mates, Michael

    Summerson, Hugo

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Tracey, Richard

    Moate, Roger

    Tredinnick, David

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Trippier, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Trotter, Neville

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Needham, Richard

    Ward, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Watts, John

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Whitney, Ray

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Norris, Steve

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Wilkinson, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Wilshire, David

    Page, Richard

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Paice, James

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Wolfson, Mark

    Patnick, Irvine

    Wood, Timothy

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Yeo, Tim

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Portillo, Michael

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Mr. Nicholas Baker and

    Price, Sir David

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees),
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Question agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at tomorrow's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) and No. 15 (Prayers against Statutory Instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Lang and Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland) may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, and, if these proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at the expiry of that period put the Questions necessary to dispose of the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Lang.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Thursday 18th April, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), if proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Agriculture have not previously beeen disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at Ten o'clock put the Questions necessary to dispose of them, including the Question on any Amendment proposed to the said Motion which he may have selected and which may then be moved, and such Questions may be decided after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Boswell.]

    Malta (Memorial)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    11.45 pm
    Sir Jim Spicer: I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to speak tonight, because tomorrow afternoon the British-Maltese parliamentary group will be hosting a reception here for the Prime Minister of Malta, Mr. Fenech-Adami. I know that he will read the report of tonight's debate with interest, and will be particularly interested in the Minister's reply.
    Given all the horrors that surround us today, highlighted so vividly on our television screens night after night, this may seem to some people rather a strange time for the George Cross island memorial siege bell trust to be set up. The aim of the trust is to fund and provide support, from both Malta and the United Kingdom, for the building of a suitable monument to the gallant people of Malta and all our service men—including many of the 14,650 Maltese who enlisted—ho between 1940 and 1943 lived under siege conditions, facing constant attack from air and sea, as well as suffering great hardship through lack of food and all other basic necessities.
    In my view, there can never be a wrong moment to commemorate heroism and sacrifice. What more appropriate time could there be for a monument such as this to be dedicated than 1992, to mark the 50th anniversary of the award of the George Cross to the island of Malta?
    I was about 14 in 1940, and served as an air-raid messenger throughout the worst of the bombing raids on London in both 1940 and 1941. They were hard times, and there was little good news to give us comfort. However, I well remember that we all took heart from the example set by Malta, and we were all delighted when the courage and fortitude of all those involved in that siege were recognised in such a unique way by His Majesty King George VI on 15 April 1942, with the award of the George Cross to Malta.
    In his message to the people of Malta, His Majesty said:
    "To honour her brave people, I award the George Cross to the island fortress of Malta to bear witness to a heroism and devotion that will long be famous in history."
    Many people believe that that siege was much greater than the many earlier sieges from which Malta suffered.
    The award came just after the worst bombing of Malta. Between 24 March and 12 April 1942, more than 2,000 sorties were made by the Germans and the Italians against the Grand harbour, with 1,870 tonnes of bombs dropped. In April 1942, 6,700 tonnes of bombs fell on the island, almost evenly split between the dockyard area and the airfields.
    That Maltese ordeal continued until June 1943, but always the morale of the islanders was buoyed up by the, at times, unbelievable bravery of our armed forces, who battled their way through to the island with all the men, material and supplies necessary to sustain resistance to the enemy.
    As an aside, I point out that when I read the history of those times I was struck forcibly by the fact that, for a large part of the siege of Malta, many of the Maltese people were genuinely near to starvation. The ration for a service man in those days was 4,000 calories. In Malta that was reduced to 2,000 calories. Dock workers, working

    141
    perhaps a 12-hour day under the terrible conditions that I have already described, were reduced to a ration of 1,750 calories a day. The ration for a woman was only 1,500 calories a day. On top of all the bombing and hardship that the Maltese people had to suffer, there was a slow but gradual decline in the well-being of the population, a point that we tend to forget.
    After that digression, I return to what our forces did at that time. They fought their way through to the island. The losses in all such operations were appallingly high. They reached a climax in Operation Pedestal in 1942, when a convoy, vital to the survival of Malta, battled to get through to the island. The story of that convoy and the losses sustained by it bear witness to the dedication of our armed forces throughout the battle for Malta. From that one convoy, originally consisting of 14 ships, only five survived to unload in Malta. Nine of them were sunk at sea. Of the five that limped into Malta—limping is, I believe, the right word—about three of them were very severely damaged and only survived because of the work and dedication of the crews of those ships.
    The monument, when erected, will commemorate this great page in the history of two island peoples. It must, and indeed it will, be completed by April of next year. The trust has a target figure of £250,000. With the support of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh as patron and of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Lewin, both of whom served in the Mediterranean during the war, almost £150,000 has already been raised. That figure includes a Foreign and Commonwealth Office commitment of £25,000, for which I know that the officers of the trust are very grateful.
    At this point, may I ask my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate one question? Grateful though the trust is, as are all the trust's friends, for that donation, is there not another Department of State that might consider it right and proper to search in its coffers and find some contribution, however small, towards such a worthy cause? If there were any way in which my hon. Friend could forward such a process in that Department's thinking, I should be deeply grateful to him. I know that life might then be slightly easier for Lord Lewin, who will be on the warpath trying to get money wherever and whenever he can.
    We have the wholehearted support of both the British and Maltese Governments for this worthy project. The site—overlooking St. Elmo point—has already been chosen and the impressive monument designed. To date, 167 Members of Parliament have signed early-day motion 366, which relates to the erection of the monument. I can give you a firm assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many more will do so in the weeks to come.
    Finally, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the support given thus far by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We look forward to continuance—perhaps even extension—of such support before building commences.
    11.54 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): At the outset, I wish to express clearly the British Government's strong support for this project. We welcome this initiative by the George Cross Island Association, and are following its progress closely.
    142
    As the House will recall, Malta played a vital strategic role in the second world war. I therefore very much share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir Jim Spicer) that it is entirely fitting and appropriate that the many who died in the siege of Malta between 1940 and 1943 should be remembered in this way. My hon. Friend has talked of these dire events. I can confirm that during April 1942 alone more bombs fell on Malta than fell on the whole of this country during the worst month of the Battle of Britain.
    As my hon. Friend has said, Malta's heroic struggle and survival during that period, which culminated in the unprecedented award to the island of the George Cross by King George VI in April 1942, has rightly been identified as one of the main turning points of the war. The Malta memorial will remind coming generations of the endurance, steadfastness and heroism of the Maltese people, and of the sacrifices made by so many men and women of the allied forces and civilians during the siege.
    I therefore happily applaud the George Cross Island Association's imagination, foresight and initiative in seeking to have the memorial ready for unveiling by the fiftieth anniversary of the George Cross award to Malta in April 1992. We are pleased to hear that the Maltese Government are to provide the site for the memorial and construct the monument. We are also glad to learn that the siege bell is likely to be cast in Britain.
    The Government believe that it is right to contribute to this worthwhile cause. Therefore, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made available the £25,000 to which my hon. Friend referred. The Government are not unsympathetic to the view, expressed tonight by my hon. Friend, that more public funds should be made available for this project. However, in our present financial climate, when Government funds are very hard pressed, it would be quite wrong of me to offer any hope of an increased contribution from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is right that the bulk of the funds required should be raised through public subscription. My hon. Friend referred to the excellent start that was made to the siege bell trust appeal following the inaugural presentation at the Imperial War Museum in December last year. The fund-raising committee deserves our full appreciation for its efforts.
    Of course, Maltese heroism during the war is not the sum total of our relationship with the island. Many hon. Members will no doubt be aware that formal ties between our two countries go back as far as 1799, when Maltese patriots invited the British to remove Napoleon's troops from the island. Hon. Members are aware of the current visit to London by the Maltese Prime Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his astute timing.
    The Government welcome the present Maltese Government's policies aimed at securing Malta's links with western countries that share the same democratic values and traditions. In this context, we have noted Malta's bid to become a member of the European Community. Equally, we have valued its renewed and vigorous role in such forums as the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the Commonwealth. We shared its disappointment when its bid to be host to this year's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was ultimately unsuccessful.
    But our relationship is not only a matter of official visits and common interests. Many people in Britain have close links with Malta. Britons go in their thousands to soak up

    143
    the Maltese sun and enjoy the island's hospitality and unique historical heritage. In 1990 the number of British tourists to Malta was nearly 500,000.
    I am, therefore, delighted that from April next year when, as we know, the siege memorial will be dedicated,
    144
    tourists of all nationalities, but in particular those from Britain and the older Commonwealth countries, will be able to visit a new monument which will combine historical interest and poignant remembrance.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has identified any further candidates within his Department for executive agency status under the "next steps" programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have decided that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory should become a candidate for executive agency status under the "next steps" initiative.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 219, on the marine pollution control unit in the Gulf, if he will make a statement on the results of the MPCU's actions in co-ordination of commercial offers of counter-pollution personnel and equipment from British companies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The purpose of the marine pollution control unit's co-ordinating activities has been to alert prospective customers in the Gulf to what counter-pollution equipment and personnel are available from British companies. Thereafter, it is for customers to take up whatever offers, if any. they wish to pursue. To date, three contracts have been let to British companies as the result of the actions—one by the Department of the Environment and two by the International Maritime Organisation. These are:

  a. DOE
  DESMI Engineering Ltd, of Newcastle under Lyme. The supply of six Heavy Duty Oil Skimmers. These were presented to the Government of Bahrain by HMG as described in my answer of 21 March.

  b. IMO
  (1) Alba International Ltd, of Aberdeen. Clean-up feasibility study for Musallamiyah Bay. An area of ecological importance given high priority by the Saudi Arabian Government.
  (2) Alba International Ltd., of Aberdeen. Clean-up of the coastline of Karan Island, off the Saudi Arabian coast. The most important breeding ground in the Gulf for Green Turtles.
  Both IMO contracts are being funded from the IMO Gulf fund to which a number of countries have contributed, including the United Kingdom.

  Cars (Fuel Efficiency)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's projections of the change in the average fuel efficiency of cars between 1991 and 1996.

  Mr. Chope
  Improvements in the fuel efficiency of vehicles that have occurred in past years are now increasingly reflected in the overall vehicle fleet. The Government do not make projections of fuel economy for 2
  vehicles. Such improvements will depend on motorists' demands for more fuel-efficient vehicles and on the ability of manufacturers to respond.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that an environmental assessment is carried out of the various route options for the channel tunnel high-speed rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  Environmental considerations form part of the British Rail's assessment of the route options for the channel tunnel rail link.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assumptions about toll rate and its rate of increase underlay the oral statement by the Minister of State on 14 January,Official Report, column 644, that current forecasts indicated that tolling for concessionaires for the second Seven bridge would not be necessary for more than 21 or 22 years; and what were the underlying assumptions about future traffic growth;

  (2) by what date at the rate currently envisaged for 1992 under the current assumptions indicated in the oral statement by the Minister of State, Official Report, 14 January, column 644, payment for the Severn bridge will be completed; and what the annual toll income would be in the final year at constant prices;

  (3) on the basis of current assumptions about traffic growth on the second Severn bridge and toll levels for 1992 indicated in the oral statement by the Minister of State on 14 January, Official Report, column 644, what at constant prices is the forecast annual income from tolls for each year from 1992 until the bridge is paid for.

  Mr. Chope
  The forecast that the concessionaire's actual tolling period for the Severn bridges would be 21 or 22 years, within the 30 year maximum allowed, was based on the toll levels set out in the Severn Bridges Bill, indexed for inflation in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. The forecast was based on the concessionaire's assumptions about future traffic growth, which were approximately as follows:

  Per cent. Per annum

  1992–1995

  2·7

  1996–2000

  2·4

  2001–2005

  2·2

  2006–2010

  2·0

  2011–2013

  1·8

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how the costs of operating the Severn bridge, excluding costs arising from original design faults, have moved relative to the retail prices index since the bridge was opened;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of the costs, excluding those arising from original design faults, of operating the Severn bridge in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  The total cost of operating the Severn bridge in 1967–68, the first full year, was 1·032 million or 0·071 million at 1988–89 prices. This compares with a
  3
  total cost of £12·753 million in 1988–89, the last full year for which figures are available. A breakdown of the figures is published in the Severn bridge accounts. The figures include the costs of toll collection, servicing debts, strengthening work to allow for vehicular loadings into the next century, and maintenance to make good general wear and tear normal for a structure of this size and age. The original design complied fully with the requirements of that time.

  Trunk Roads
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the occasions in the last 10 years where one of the routes listed in the public consultation on a trunk road scheme went through or within 100 m of a site of special scientific interest but where the final route chosen did not;

  (2) if he will list the trunk road schemes constructed through or within 100 m of a site of special scientific interest in the last 10 years;

  (3) if he will list the occasions in the last 10 years where the draft line order of a trunk road scheme went through or within 100 m of a site of special scientific interest but where the confirmed line order did not.

  Mr. Chope
  This information could not be obtained without disproportionate cost. Every effort is made to keep trunk roads away from sites of special scientific interest. Where this is not possible we take particular care that the routes chosen do as little damage to the environment as practicable.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state(a) the average duration, in days, of a public inquiry into a trunk road scheme, (b) the average cost per day of holding a public inquiry into a trunk road scheme and (c) how many person days are spent by officers of his Department on public inquiries each year.

  Mr. Chope
  In the financial year 1990–91, the average duration was 16 days. More than half took less than 10 days, and a third less than five days.

  Accurate costs to the Department of these inquiries, including consultants' fees and costs, are not identified separately from total scheme preparation cost. Inspectors' costs, which can be identified, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Similarly, the amount of staff time, where it could separately be identified, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Shipping Accidents
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the recommendations in the marine directorate's report, "The Human Element in Shipping Casualties" (i) have been implemented, (ii) it is intended to implement and to what timetable and (iii) will not be acted upon; and for what reasons.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  "The Human Element in Shipping Casualties" research project was designed primarily to aid the identification and recording of the human element in future accident investigations and to assess the feasibility of preventive measures. The marine accident investigation branch is generally in sympathy with the tenor of the recommendations covering investigation procedures and is 4
  adapting its methods accordingly. The report has been submitted to the International Maritime Organisation where it will be discussed by the maritime safety committee in May. The Department will consider its further actions in the light of those discussions.

  Highway Cleaning
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made for ensuring that the cost provision of cleaning roads and embankments, currently the responsibility of highway authorities, is transferred to those authorities due to take over responsibility for road cleaning on 1 April under the Environmental Protection Act.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The control totals for highway maintenance and all other services provided for 1991–92 in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) as amended by the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England) take account of the clarification of responsibility for street-cleaning for non-highway purposes brought about by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  National Road Traffic Forecasts
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the terms of reference of the commission given to the MVA Consultancy to review the 1989 national road traffic forecasts.

  Mr. Chope
  The MVA Consultancy has not been commissioned to review the 1989 national road traffic forecasts. Those forecasts remain the best available view. The MVA commission is for a technical review of methodology, which in this field, as in others, needs to be reviewed from time to time to see whether further improvements can be made.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mammals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a code of practice to ensure that scientific procedures involving the dissection of mammals are not carried out within sight, sound or smell of other mammals.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Home Office "Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures"—1989; HC 107—specifies that"major surgery and euthanasia should not be performed in rooms where animals are normally housed or where other conscious animals are undergoing procedures".

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases related to non-payment of the poll tax in Blyth valley have been dealt with by the magistrates court.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the period 1 April to 31 December 1990, Blyth valley magistrates court issued 15,478 summonses in community charge enforcement proceedings and made 12,451 liability orders.

  Charity Commissioners
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the relevant biographical details of each of the charity commissioners which he took into account when making their appointments.

  Mr. John Patten
  In appointing the commissioners, my right hon. Friend took into account the range of their experience and the knowledge and skills which they could bring to the work of the commission.

  Trespassers
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has concluded his review of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have completed our review of section 39 and we expect to announce our conclusions very soon.

  Jet Skis
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)Official Report, 22 February, column 277, on powers of local authorities in respect of control of the operation of waterborne jet ski machines, whether he proposes to increase such powers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans at present to introduce legislation to increase authorities' powers in this area. This is one of a number of safety related issues being considered by a working group on water sports safety which has been appointed by the Minister for Sport. I understand that it will report its conclusions this summer.

  Poll Tax Rally
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the anti-poll tax march and rally in central London on 23 March with particular regard as to how many officers were deployed and at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The policing of demonstrations in the Metropolitan police area is an operational matter for the Commissioner. I understand from him that 4,950 officers were deployed to police the demonstration on 23 March against the community charge and that the additional cost of policing the event, including catering and transport costs, is estimated at around £205,000.

  Prisons
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the White Paper on the Government's legislative proposals arising out of the Woolf report.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The White Paper to chart the future direction of the prison service in England and Wales is being prepared for publication later this year.

  Armley Prison
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will put in the Library a copy of the report of the governor of Durham prison on his inquiry into prisoners moved from Hull to Armley.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the report of an investigation into allegations made by certain prisoners transferred from Her Majesty's prison Full Sutton to Her Majesty's prison Leeds in 1988. This report was prepared for internal purposes only and we do not plan to make it more widely available.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, for each of the last four years, he will list the sums of money that have been paid by his Department as compensation for miscarriages of justice involving wrongful imprisonment; and for each sum if he will give the length of the term of imprisonment served.

  Mr. John Patten
  The following information relates to payment of compensation in respect of imprisonment as a result of wrongful conviction, and is based upon the date on which the final payment of compensation was made. A number of interim payments, pending final assessment of compensation, have also been made during the period. The amounts shown are inclusive of any previous interim award.

  Year

  Amount of compensation paid in resolved cases £

  Period of detention in custody

  1987

  23,830

  15½ months

  38,100

  6½ years

  20,850

  2½ years

  34,350

  3 years

  2,449

  1½ months

  10,701

  12 months

  1,342

  1 month

  30,656

  21 months

  1988

  25,357

  2¾ years

  18,604

  16 months

  12,000

  13½ months

  5,805

  2 months

  10,425

  15 months

  30,709

  6 months

  8,230

  3 months

  6,345

  4½ months

  6,344

  3 months

  2,494

  2 weeks

  7,125

  7 months

  1990

  7,650

  3 months

  33,750

  17 months

  17,315

  20 months

  6,156

  3 months

  8,250

  7 months

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he uses when considering whether to recommend the royal prerogative of mercy to grant a remission of sentence(a) on grounds affecting the original sentence and (b) on other grounds.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend considers recommending the exercise of the royal prerogative of
  7
  mercy in cases where (a) the sentencing court were unaware or misinformed about matters which may have affected the sentence, no avenue of appeal exists and it is not possible or appropriate to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal; and (b) where developments subsequent to the sentence and unconnected with the circumstances of the conviction suggest that special remission should be granted as an act of mercy, for example where a prisoner suffers from a terminal illness or gives valuable assistance to the authorities.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used in assessing the quantum of compensation payable for miscarriages of justice(a) under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and (b) on an ex-gratia basis where there has been misconduct or default by the police or some other agency of the criminal justice system.

  Mr. John Patten
  The amount of compensation to be paid under both the statutory and ex-gratia schemes is decided on the advice of an independent assessor experienced in the assessment of damages. In making his assessment the assessor applies principles analogous to those governing the assessment of damages for civil wrongs. The assessment takes account of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses arising from the conviction and/or loss of liberty. The assessor also has regard, where appropriate, to the extent to which the circumstances leading to the wrongful conviction or charge might have been attributable to any action, or failure to act, by the police or other public authority.

  Prison Leave
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of the criteria applying to prison leave; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend hopes that the review will be completed and revised instructions issued to governors in the autumn. I will write to the hon. Member when the instructions are issued.

  Poll Tax Payment
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions where a custodial sentence has been imposed on someone for not paying the poll tax.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information about the number of committal warrants issued in community charge proceedings in the period 1 April to 31 December 1990 is available in the Library; comparable information for the period I January to 31 March 1991 will be placed in the Library within six weeks of the end of the quarter.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he arranged to ask the post in Islamabad to issue a visa to Mr. Niaz Mohammed, born on 1 January 1962 (Ref: IMM/81672), to enable him to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  8
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A letter authorising the issue of an entry clearance to Mr. Niaz Mohammed was sent to the entry clearance officer at the British high commission in Islamabad on 11 April.

THE ARTS

  Visits (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if it is his intention to visit Glasgow during the Mayfest and Edinburgh at the time of the Edinburgh international festival in order to view exhibitions and attend certain concerts and theatrical productions.

  Mr. Renton
  At present I have no plans to visit Glasgow during the Mayfest, but I do hope to visit the Edinburgh international festival. I am also visiting the Shetlands arts festival and the east coast of Scotland in early May.

  North West Arts Board
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has met the chair of North West regional arts board to discuss the impact of the poll tax on arts and libraries in the region in 1991–92.

  Mr. Renton
  No. The new chair of Arts Board: North-West was appointed at the beginning of this month. I intend to meet him regularly to discuss arts matters, as I have done with his predecessor.

  Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the level of public subsidy granted to the Royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra.

  Mr. Renton
  I am pleased that it was possible for the Arts Council to increase its grant to the orchestra this year by 17 per cent., including an enhancement fund award of £100,000. I was delighted to attend the launch of the Royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra's appeal in Liverpool on 18 January this year.

  Yorkshire Arts Council
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what objectives he has set the new chairman of Yorkshire regional arts council.

  Mr. Renton
  I have determined the overall framework for the new arts funding structure. Detailed objectives within this framework are a matter for discussion and agreement between the Arts Council and individual boards.

  Arts Funding (North-West)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has visited the north-west region to discuss arts funding with local authority leaders.

  Mr. Renton
  I discussed arts funding during my visit to Liverpool in January this year. In addition, I regularly meet local authority representatives from the north-west who are involved in arts policy in the region.

  Reserve Collections
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his estimate of the value of reserve collections in public museums and galleries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Information on reserve collections in public museums and galleries is not held centrally. Such collections are usually available to researchers, scholars and any interested party.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will introduce direct regional funding for the arts.

  Mr. Renton
  No, as the Arts Council makes allocations to the regions out of its total budget, taking account of the plans submitted by each region to do so.

  Table 6—Planning total analysed by territorial area and function 1989–90

  £ million

  Identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland (total)

  Programme 151

  Scotland other

  Wales (total)

  Programme 161

  Wales other

  Northern Ireland (total)

  Programme 171

  Northern Ireland other2

  Total

  Non-identified

  United Kingdom

  Defence

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,680·7

  20,680·7

  Overseas services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,537·5

  2,537·5

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  658·8

  215·6

  198·1

  17·5

  93·1

  83·4

  9·7

  181·6

  178·1

  3·5

  1,149·1

  913·8

  2,062·9

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,783·6

  640·3

  254·8

  385·5

  360·9

  163·9

  197·0

  749·0

  3749·0

  —

  5,533·7

  1,259·2

  6,792·9

  Roads and Transport

  2,357·0

  201·2

  200·2

  1·1

  170·4

  170·3

  0·1

  367·9

  367·9

  —

  3,096·4

  1,181·5

  4,277·9

  Housing

  2,892·0

  316·6

  316·6

  —

  109·8

  109·8

  —

  30·8

  30·8

  —

  3,349·3

  17·3

  3,366·6

  Other environmental services

  605·1

  75·8

  70·0

  5·8

  75·6

  70·6

  5·0

  218·0

  218·0

  —

  974·5

  512·4

  1,486·8

  Local government

  19,673·9

  4,373·0

  4,373·0

  —

  1,775·0

  1,775·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25,821·9

  25,821·9

  Law, order and protective services

  3,495·8

  476·1

  443·1

  33·0

  176·0

  —

  176·0

  697·6

  666·2

  31·4

  4,845·5

  1,631·3

  6,476·8

  Education and science4

  4,402·2

  592·1

  314·2

  277·9

  188·4

  30·6

  157·8

  899·0

  899·0

  —

  6,081·7

  902·3

  6,984·0

  Arts and libraries4

  258·2

  25·4

  25·4

  —

  20·5

  20·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  304·1

  188·5

  492·6

  Health and personal social services

  19,992·2

  2,753·0

  2,753·0

  —

  1,331·2

  1,331·2

  —

  961·6

  961·6

  —

  25,038·1

  40·2

  25,078·3

  Social security

  43,414·5

  5,177·2

  —

  5,177·2

  2,935·9

  —

  2,935·9

  1,708·0

  1,695·4

  12·6

  53,235·6

  637·9

  53,873·5

  Miscellaneous5

  -1·7

  126·3

  126·3

  —

  49·7

  48·0

  1·7

  59·0

  59·0

  —

  233·3

  6,909·7

  7,143·0

  Privatisation proceeds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -4,202·0

  -4,202·0

  Total expenditure

  101,531·8

  14,972·5

  9,074·6

  5,897·9

  7,286·3

  3,803·2

  3,483·1

  5,872·5

  5,825·0

  47·5

  129,663·2

  33,210·3

  162,873·5

  1 Programmes 15, 16 and 17 relate to expenditure programmes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland covered by the Departmental Reports for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Cm 1515–1517).

  2 Responsibility for most expenditure in Northern Ireland rests with the Northern Ireland Office and Departments; this column includes certain expenditure in support of the agriculture and fishing industries, the costs of the NI Court Service and War Pension payments.

  3 Includes £305 million for costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc.

  4 Expenditure on arts and libraries in Northern Ireland is included with education and science.

  5 Includes contributions to European Communities and expenditure associated with general maintenance of government, such as tax collection and population registration.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when it was determined that changing the timing of building societies' payments of income tax was intended to raise extra revenue;

  (2) on how many occasions Ministers have stated that the building societies income tax changes announced in the 1985 Budget and in subsequent amendments were (a) not to yield extra income and (b) to yield extra income.

  Mr. Maude
  Ministers have always made it clear that the changes in the way building societies account for tax on interest and dividends paid would not involve the payment of extra tax.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the disputed tax awarded to the Woolwich Equitable building society was(a) extra tax or (b) the original expected tax.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table, consistent with table 6 of his answer to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) of 13 December,Official Report, columns 457–58, providing an otherwise identical analysis of the planning total.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures reflect the estimates of the planning total available when the data reported in the Official Report on 13 December were prepared.

  Mr. Maude
  The tax involved was that applicable to investors' interest and dividends paid in the period between 1 October 1985 and 5 April 1986. The House of Lords decided that the Inland Revenue had power to make regulations bringing these payments of interest and dividends into account but not to charge tax at rates in force for 1985–86.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on how many occasions the courts have ruled against the Government to the effect that the Woolwich Equitable building society should not have to pay extra tax following the 1985 Budget speech;

  (2) if he will arrange for the judgments in the various Woolwich Equitable building society tax cases to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Maude
  There have been two judgments in favour of the Woolwich Equitable building society in litigation over the application of the transitional provisions in the 1986 Building Societies Regulations.
  11
  In July 1987 the High Court held that the Inland Revenue did not have power to make regulations that sought to bring into account payments made by societies in transitional periods before 6 April 1986. That decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal in April 1989. In October 1990 the House of Lords concluded that the Revenue had power to bring the payments in the transitional periods into account but not to charge tax at the rates in force for 1985–86.

  Copies of the judgments are available in the Library.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing, for the current financial year, his estimate of the number of cases in which relief will be given on mortgage interest payments tax relief, the average value of that relief per mortgagor, and the cost of that relief, for each of the following total income ranges (a) up to £4,000, (b) £4,001 to £5,000, (c) £5,001 to £6,000, (d) £6,001 to £7,000, (e) £7,001 to £8,000, (f) £8,001 to £9,000, (g) £9,001 to £10,000, (h) £10,001 to £12,000, (i) £12,001 to £15,000, (j) £15,001 to £20,000, (k) £20,001 to £25,000, (l) £25,001 to £30,000 and (m) over £30,000.

  Mr. Maude
  Available information is given in my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 13 March,Official Report, at column 552.

  Invisible Trade
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by what methods monthly invisible trade figures are calculated by other Community member states; and whether monthly invisible trade data produced by other Community Governments are directly comparable with Central Statistical Office statistics produced for the United Kingdom;

  (2) what sampling method is used by the Central Statistical Office to calculate the monthly trade figures for invisibles; what changes in Central Statistical Office methods of calculating invisible trade figures have been made in each of the last 12 months; and what proposals he has to change the statistical method of calculating invisible trade figures.

  Mr. Maples
  Other Community countries, except the Irish Republic, require their residents to report individual payments to or receipts from overseas, usually above a threshold, and these data are used by the central banks to compile estimates of invisible trade. Only Germany, Greece and Spain choose to publish monthly invisibles estimates. The United Kingdom does not compile monthly figures of invisibles; the monthly figures shown in the monthly balance of payments press notice are either simply one third of the relevant reported quarterly figure or, for the most recent months, a projection. The projection for the most recent months is mainly an extrapolation from earlier quarterly estimates but it takes account of recent trends and of movements in exchange and interest rates. It is subject to considerable uncertainty.

  All Community countries seek to compile invisibles estimates according to the guidelines on concepts and definitions issued by the International Monetary Fund. Therefore, the United Kingdom's quarterly estimates, which underlie the monthly calculations, are comparable with those for other Community countries.
  12
  The Central Statistical Office does not use sampling methods to calculate the monthly estimates of invisibles and it has not made any change to its methods for calculating these estimates in the past 12 months. The Central Statistical Office has no plans at present to change the way that it calculates monthly figures of invisibles, however this will be re-examined in the light of the recommendations of the review of balance of payments statistics. This is currently being carried out as part of the Chancellor's initiative on economic statistics which, among other things, is seeking to improve the quarterly estimates of invisibles. Details can be found in Economic Trends for March 1991, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate at constant 1990 prices of the invisible balance in each year since 1979; and what is his estimate of the value of United Kingdom produced crude oil for these years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information relating to the volume of invisible trade is only calculated at 1985 prices and only for services. Estimates for exports and imports of services at 1985 prices for the years 1979 to 1989 can be found in table 4.1 of the Pink Book "United Kingdom Balance of Payments" which is available in the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office database which can be accessed through the Library. An estimate for 1990 will be included in the 1991 Pink Book, to be published in the summer.

  The estimates of the value of United Kingdom produced crude oil, including natural gas liquids, for the years 1979 to 1990 are as follows:

  £ billion (current prices)

  1979

  5·7

  1980

  8·9

  1981

  12·3

  1982

  14·4

  1983

  17·0

  1984

  20·6

  1985

  19·9

  1986

  9·3

  1987

  9·9

  1988

  7·2

  1989

  7·3

  1990

  18·6

  1 Provisional.

  Earnings
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real take-home pay for a married man with two children who is on half male average earnings since 1978–79 each year to the latest date available.

  Mr. Maude
  The figures are given in the table.

  Growth in real take home pay for married man with two children on half male average earnings:

  1978–79 to:

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  2·8

  1980–81

  2·5

  1981–82

  -0·6

  1982–83

  0·6

  1983–84

  5·6

  1984–85

  9·8

  13

  1978–79 to:

  Per cent.

  1985–86

  11·2

  1986–87

  15·2

  1987–88

  19·8

  1988–89

  23·1

  1989–90

  24·4

  1990–91

  24·5

  1991–92

  29·3

  Notes to table:

  (1) Real take home pay is taken to include child benefit to allow comparability with 1978–79 when support for families with children was given partly through child tax allowances.

  (2) Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that no tax reliefs are received other than the standard allowances and that earnings are the only source of income. NI contributions are calculated at the class I contracted-in rate.

  (3) Where determinants of take home pay such as NICs or child benefit have varied during the course of a year, the average value for the financial year has been used.

  (4) Average male earnings are the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are assumed to be £307·90 a week in 1990–91 and £334·10 a week in 1991–92 using the Government Actuary Department's assumptions of 10 per cent. growth for 1990–91 over 1989–90 and 8½ per cent. for 1991–92 over 1990–91 as published in the 1990 autumn statement.

  (5) Real changes are calculated using the average level of the Retail Prices Index in each financial year.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, of 6 March,Official Report columns 165–66, taking account of the changes announced in the 1991 Budget and giving estimates up to 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  Latest estimates of the annual change in income tax liability resulting from the changes in tax rates, allowances, thresholds, and the restriction of mortgage interest relief to the basic rate are in the table. The 1978–79

  Income Tax, NICS and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1990–91

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Married, both working

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  1·81

  22·69

  43·57

  85·34

  127·10

  218·00

  333·91

  467·55

  734·83

  1,135·75

  2,472·15

  NICS

  7·75

  15·27

  22·79

  37·82

  51·88

  62·92

  62·92

  62·92

  62·92

  62·92

  62·92

  VAT

  —

  14·23

  19·66

  30·51

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  24·01

  28·13

  36·37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9·56

  76·20

  114·15

  190·04

  178·98

  280·92

  396·83

  530·47

  797·75

  1,198·67

  2,535·07

  Amounts, 1990–91 prices

  Income Tax

  1·73

  21·71

  41·70

  81·67

  121·63

  208·63

  319·55

  447·45

  703·23

  1,086·91

  2,365·85

  NICS

  7·42

  14·61

  21·81

  36·19

  49·65

  60·21

  60·21

  60·21

  60·21

  60·21

  60·21

  VAT

  —

  13·62

  18·81

  29·20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  22·98

  26·92

  34·81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9·15

  72·92

  109·24

  181·87

  171·28

  268·84

  379·77

  507·66

  763·45

  1,147·13

  2,426·06

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax

  1·1

  9·1

  13·0

  17·0

  19·0

  21·7

  25·0

  28·0

  31·4

  34·0

  37·0

  NICS

  4·6

  6·1

  6·8

  7·5

  7·8

  6·3

  4·7

  3·8

  2·7

  1·9

  0·9

  VAT

  —

  5·7

  5·9

  6·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9·6

  8·4

  7·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5·7

  30·4

  34·2

  37·9

  26·8

  28·0

  29·7

  31·8

  34·1

  35·9

  37·9

  Married 2 children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  1·52

  22·40

  43·28

  85·05

  144·21

  177·85

  411·49

  545·13

  812·41

  1,213·33

  2,549·73

  NICS

  11·39

  18·91

  26·43

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  VAT

  —

  12·27

  17·93

  30·29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14
  income tax regime has been indexed to 1991–92 levels by reference to the statutory formula, and allowing for independent taxation.

  For the purposes of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 is applied directly to the income base of 1991–92. In practice, retention of the regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Average reduction in income tax per individual1 in 1991–92 compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in 1991–92 (£)

  Average reduction at 1991–92 income levels £

  Under 5,000

  130

  5,000 to 10,000

  350

  10,000 to 15,000

  640

  15,000 to 20,000

  910

  20,000 to 25,000

  1,240

  25,000 to 30,000

  1,600

  30,000 to 40,000

  2,190

  40,000 to 50,000

  3,470

  50,000 to 60,000

  5,740

  60,000 to 70,000

  9,050

  Over 70,000

  34,640

  Total

  970

  1 Individuals paying income tax under the 1978–79 indexed regime.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer given to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of 17 January,Official Report, columns 559–62, taking account of the changes announced in the 1991 Budget and giving estimates up to 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  Updated figures for 1990–91 and estimates for 1991–92 are given in the table.
  15

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Other indirect

  —

  20·32

  24·00

  32·04

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  12·91

  73·90

  111·64

  178·84

  175·67

  309·31

  442·95

  576·59

  843·87

  1,244·79

  2,581·19

  Amounts, 1990–91 prices

  Income Tax

  1·45

  21·44

  41·42

  81·39

  138·01

  265·90

  393·80

  521·69

  777·48

  1,161·16

  2,440·09

  NICS

  10·90

  18·10

  25·29

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  VAT

  —

  11·74

  17·16

  28·99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  19·45

  22·97

  30·66

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  12·35

  70·72

  106·84

  171·15

  168·12

  296·01

  423·90

  551·80

  807·58

  1,191·26

  2,470·20

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax

  0·9

  8·9

  13·0

  17·0

  21·6

  27·7

  30·8

  32·6

  34·7

  36·3

  38·2

  NICS

  68

  7·5

  7·9

  6·3

  4·7

  3·1

  2·4

  1·9

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  4·9

  5·4

  6·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·1

  7·2

  6·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  77·7

  29·5

  33·4

  35·7

  26·3

  30·9

  33·1

  34·5

  36·1

  37·3

  38·6

  Income Tax, NICS and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1991–92

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  25·92

  46·80

  67·68

  109·45

  173·57

  307·21

  440·85

  574·49

  841·77

  1,242·69

  2,579·09

  NICS

  11·39

  18·91

  26·43

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  VAT

  —

  13·56

  18·16

  28·18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18·79

  23·39

  33·43

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  37·31

  98·06

  135·66

  202·52

  205·03

  338·67

  472·31

  605·95

  873·23

  1,274·15

  2,610·55

  Amounts, 1990–91 prices

  Income Tax

  24·81

  44·79

  64·77

  104·74

  166·11

  294·00

  421·89

  549·79

  805·57

  1,189·25

  2,468·19

  NICS

  10·90

  18·10

  25·29

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  VAT

  —

  12·98

  17·38

  26·97

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  17·98

  22·38

  31·99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  35·71

  93·84

  129·83

  193·81

  196·21

  324·11

  452·00

  579·89

  835·68

  1,219·36

  2,498·30

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax

  15·5

  18·7

  20·3

  21·8

  26·0

  30·7

  33·0

  34·4

  36·0

  37·2

  38·6

  NICS

  6·8

  7·5

  7·9

  6·3

  4·7

  3·1

  2·4

  1·9

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  5·4

  5·4

  5·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·5

  7·0

  6·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  22·3

  39·1

  40·6

  40·4

  30·7

  33·8

  35·3

  36·3

  37·3

  38·1

  39·1

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  17·65

  38·53

  59·41

  101·18

  160·34

  293·98

  427·62

  561·26

  828·54

  1,229·46

  2,565·86

  NICS

  11·39

  18·91

  26·43

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  31·46

  VAT

  —

  12·47

  17·47

  28·38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  20·78

  25·41

  35·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  29·04

  90·69

  128·72

  196·52

  191·80

  325·44

  459·08

  592·72

  860·00

  1,260·92

  2,597·32

  Amounts, 1990–91 prices

  Income Tax

  16·89

  36·87

  56·86

  96·83

  153·45

  281·34

  409·23

  537·13

  792·91

  1,176·59

  2,455·53

  NICS

  10·90

  18·10

  25·29

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  30·11

  VAT

  —

  11·93

  16·72

  27·16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  19·89

  24·32

  33·97

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  27·79

  86·79

  123·19

  188·07

  183·55

  311·45

  439·34

  567·23

  823·02

  1,206·70

  2,485·64

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax

  10·6

  15·4

  17·8

  20·2

  24·0

  29·3

  32·0

  33·6

  35·4

  36·8

  38·4

  NICS

  6·8

  7·5

  7·9

  6·3

  4·7

  3·1

  2·4

  1·9

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  5·0

  5·2

  5·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·3

  7·6

  7·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  17·4

  36·2

  38·5

  39·2

  28·7

  32·5

  34·4

  35·5

  36·8

  37·7

  38·9

  16

  17

  Income tax, NICS and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1990–91

  Multiples of average earnings

  0·5

  0·75

  1

  1·5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  24·04

  43·28

  62·53

  101·91

  163·49

  286·65

  409·81

  532·97

  779·29

  1,148·77

  2,380·37

  NICS

  10·64

  17·56

  24·49

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  VAT

  —

  11·23

  15·05

  23·38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  17·08

  21·27

  30·42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  34·68

  89·15

  123·34

  183·99

  191·77

  314·93

  438·09

  561·25

  807·57

  1,177·05

  2,408·65

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  15·6

  18·7

  20·3

  22·1

  26·5

  31·0

  33·3

  34·6

  36·2

  37·3

  38·7

  NICS

  6·9

  7·6

  8·0

  6·1

  4·6

  3·1

  2·3

  1·8

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  4·9

  4·9

  5·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·4

  6·9

  6·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  22·5

  38·6

  40·1

  39·8

  31·1

  34·1

  35·6

  36·5

  37·5

  38·2

  39·1

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  15·77

  35·01

  54·26

  92·75

  150·26

  273·42

  396·58

  519·74

  766·06

  1,135·54

  2,367·14

  NICS

  10·64

  17·56

  24·49

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  VAT

  —

  10·32

  14·48

  23·62

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18·98

  23·19

  32·45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  26·41

  81·87

  116·42

  177·10

  178·54

  301·70

  424·86

  548·02

  794·34

  1,163·82

  2,395·42

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  10·2

  15·2

  17·6

  20·1

  24·4

  29·6

  32·2

  33·8

  35·5

  36·9

  38·4

  NICS

  6·9

  7·6

  8·0

  6·1

  4·6

  3·1

  2·3

  1·8

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  4·5

  4·7

  5·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·2

  7·5

  7·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  17·2

  35·5

  37·8

  38·3

  29·0

  32·7

  34·5

  35·6

  36·9

  37·8

  38·9

  Married, both working

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  1·32

  20·57

  39·81

  78·30

  116·79

  203·55

  313·75

  436·91

  683·23

  1,052·71

  2,284·31

  NICS

  7·42

  14·34

  21·27

  35·13

  47·23

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  56·56

  VAT

  —

  11·74

  16·25

  25·27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  21·90

  25·65

  33·15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  8·74

  68·55

  102·98

  171·85

  164·02

  260·11

  370·31

  493·47

  739·79

  1,109·27

  2,340·87

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0·9

  8·9

  12·9

  17·0

  19·0

  22·0

  25·5

  28·4

  31·7

  34·2

  37·1

  NICS

  4·8

  6·2

  6·9

  7·6

  7·7

  6·1

  4·6

  3·7

  2·6

  1·8

  0·9

  VAT

  —

  5·1

  5·3

  5·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9·5

  8·3

  7·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5·7

  29·7

  33·4

  37·2

  26·6

  28·2

  30·1

  32·1

  34·3

  36·0

  38·0

  Married, 2 children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  1·27

  20·51

  39·76

  78·25

  135·76

  258·92

  382·08

  505·24

  751·56

  1,121·04

  2,352·64

  NICS

  10·64

  17·56

  24·49

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  28·28

  VAT

  —

  10·06

  14·77

  25·12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18·45

  21·79

  29·14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  11·91

  66·58

  100·81

  160·79

  164·04

  287·20

  410·36

  533·52

  779·84

  1,149·32

  2,380·92

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0·8

  8·9

  12·9

  16·9

  22·0

  28·0

  31·0

  32·8

  34·9

  36·4

  38·2

  NICS

  6·9

  7·6

  8·0

  6·1

  4·6

  3·1

  2·3

  1·8

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  VAT

  —

  4·4

  4·8

  5·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·0

  7·1

  6·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7·7

  28·8

  32·7

  34·8

  26·6

  31·1

  33·3

  34·7

  36·2

  37·3

  38·7

  Notes to Tables

  (1) Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay Class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  (2) Since 1990–91, husbands and wives have been taxed independently. Previously the tax liability of couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons with earlier years, the table therefore shows income tax and national insurance contributions paid by a married couple as a proportion of their joint income, assuming, as in the earlier years, that where both partners are earners, the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.

  18 19
  (3) In order to provide comparability with 1978–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowances, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couple with two children. (For 1991–92, the child benefit figure is a financial year average.)

  (4) Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are estimated to be £307·90 per week in 1990–91 and £334·10 per week in 1991–92, using the Government Actuary Department's assumptions of 10 per cent. growth over 1989–90 and 8·5 per cent. growth over 1990–91, as published in the 1990 autumn statement.

  (5) The estimates of indirect taxes are based on equations derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey, uprated to later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. They are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with the same composition and similar incomes and estimated payments of VAT and other indirect taxes are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range, the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report, an analysis for the years 1984–85 to 1993–94, following the format of table 12.1 of Cm. 1515, of central Government support to local authorities outside the Secretary of State's responsibility.

  Central Government support for local authority expenditure in Scotland provided by departments other than the Scottish Office

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  11993–94

  Voted in Estimates

  Current grants within AEF2 Industry, energy, trade and employment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Social security

  9

  9

  10

  10

  12

  11

  12

  10

  10

  Total

  9

  9

  10

  10

  12

  14

  15

  20

  20

  Current grants outside AEF2 Agriculture, fisheries and food

  3

  4

  4

  3

  3

  8

  1

  —

  —

  Industry, energy, trade and employment

  3

  4

  4

  5

  12

  13

  —

  —

  —

  Social security

  450

  498

  579

  550

  617

  683

  747

  810

  860

  Total

  456

  506

  586

  558

  632

  704

  749

  810

  860

  Total current grants

  465

  515

  596

  568

  644

  718

  764

  820

  880

  Non-voted

  Net capital allocations Industry, energy, trade and employment

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roads and transport

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Total

  467

  517

  599

  570

  645

  719

  766

  820

  880

  1 Figures for these years are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2 Aggregate External Finance.

  Output Statistics
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of(a) the overall output and (b) the output per person engaged in each of the following industries, for the years 1979, 1980, 1985 and

  Output

  Output per head

  1979

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1979

  1980

  1985

  1990

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  74·8

  83·0

  100·0

  104·6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Metals

  118·5

  90·0

  100·0

  121·2

  68·1

  57·9

  100·0

  135·3

  Coal and coke

  136·6

  139·9

  100·0

  97·2

  96·8

  99·7

  100·0

  225·2

  Motor vehicles and parts

  131·1

  113·3

  100·0

  120·9

  78·8

  73·2

  100·0

  132·3

  Electrical and instrument engineering

  79·5

  77·8

  100·0

  125·6

  65·1

  65·4

  100·0

  132·8

  Medical, health and veterinary services

  n/a

  n/a

  100·0

  102·0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20
  Mr. David Mellor
  The information requested, consistent with that given in the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement"—Cm. 1520—is given in the table.

  1990, (i) agriculture, (ii) the steel industry, (iii) coal mining, (iv) the car industry, (v) the electrical goods industry, (vi) local government and (vii)the national health service.

  Mr. Mellor
  Estimates are not compiled on precisely the basis requested, but index numbers of output and of output per head are available for the following industry groups, on a 1985 =100 basis, as shown in the table:

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the impact of performance-related pay.
  21
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Performance-related pay in the form of additional increments depending on assessment in annual reports now covers the vast majority of civil servants. Managers in departments have generally welcomed the introduction of performance-related pay as a means to attract and retain quality people and to motivate them to produce high sustained performance.

  There are other ways in which pay is related to performance in the civil service. There is a special bonus scheme which departments can use to reward individuals or groups for particular achievements. In addition a number of agencies have introduced group bonus schemes which pay bonuses if staff beat targets for efficiency savings. Also the majority of industrial civil servants are covered by bonus schemes. All these schemes are designed to encourage efficiency and motivate staff.

  Civil Servants (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants were employed in Greater London in 1980, 1985 and 1990; what is the projected number for 1995; and what is each figure as a percentage of the civil service as a whole.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Available information for the Greater London area covers civil servants employed in the London pay area, an area within an 18 mile radius of Charing Cross. The information for the years 1980, 1985 and 1990, is shown in the table.

  Number of staff employed in the London Pay Area1

  Number in London

  Total Civil Service

  Percentage of Civil Service as a whole

  1980

  152,000

  707,800

  21·5

  1985

  126,600

  619,600

  20·4

  1990

  116,600

  562,400

  20·7

  Source: "Civil Service Statistics".

  1 Non-industrial and industrial civil servants, full time equivalent (part-time staff count as half units).

  No central forecasts have been produced for civil service staff numbers in 1995, to obtain the relevant data would involve a servicewide exercise at disproportionate cost.

  Bloodstock (VAT)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of value added tax is charged upon bloodstock in the Republic of Ireland, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The VAT rates for bloodstock in Ireland, France, Germany and the United Kingdom are respectively 2·3, 5·5, 7 and 17·5 per cent.

  Theatre Tickets (VAT)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now remove theatre tickets from liability to value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have no plans to alter the arrangements for taxation of theatre tickets.

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his policy in respect of the appropriateness of a contributory element in public sector index-linked pension schemes;

  (2) what would have been the effect on the Exchequer, in the last financial year where figures are available, of a contribution by civil servants to their pensions at rates of 5 per cent. 7 and 9 per cent. of their salary;

  (3) what representations he has received regarding the benefits in respect of expenditure and on other counts of introducing a contributory pension scheme for civil servants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government are satisfied that the contribution arrangements in the public service pension schemes which they control are appropriate. The value of pension benefits, including index-linking, continues to be a relevant factor in public service pay determination. Our policy is to provide a remuneration package, including pay, pension and other conditions of service, which is sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate staff of adequate quality. Public servants therefore bear their share of pension costs in two ways: by contributions from pay, and through pay set at levels which take proper account of the value of pension benefits.

  Civil servants make an overt contribution towards the cost of family benefits but in the main meet their share of pension costs through pay being set at levels lower than would otherwise be appropriate. If civil servants were to meet the whole of their share of the pension costs by overt contributions, the consequence for the Exchequer would be broadly neutral. This is because pay would need to be adjusted in order to offer a similar remuneration package to employees.

  Representations are made from time to time about the civil service pension scheme. The Government have no plans to alter the way in which civil servants bear their share of pension costs in the foreseeable future.

  Supply Estimates
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list indicating the distribution of the 1991–92 supply estimates votes by size from the number under £1 million to the number over £5 billion, by £100 million steps.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested can be derived from table A.1 of the Summary and Guide to the 1991–92 Supply Estimates—Cm. 1454.

  OECD
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development since December 1990.

  Mr. Maples
  The costs of the development assistance committee and its working groups are met from the contributions of member states to the overall OECD budget. The United Kingdom share of the costs of the DAC in 1990–91 was approximately £160,000.

  Mortgage Annuity Schemes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals in the Finance Bill to increase the tax relief limit on mortgage annuity schemes for older people.

  Mr. Maude
  No.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many older people are currently benefiting from tax relief on mortgage annuity schemes.

  Mr. Maude
  Information on the number of outstanding home annuity loans qualifying for tax relief is not available and a reliable estimate could be provided only at disproportionate cost. About 2,000 new home annuity loans qualifying for tax relief were taken out in 1990–91.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the £30,000 limit on mortgage interest tax relief for loans used by older people to purchase annuity schemes.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to encourage older people to raise money against their homes.

  Mr. Maude
  There are various schemes on the market for those wishing to release equity in their homes. They include interest-only mortgages, home income plans, home reversion schemes, investment bond schemes and roll-up loans.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has estimated the cost of raising the tax relief limit for mortgage annuity schemes for older people, from £30,000 to £60,000.

  Mr. Maude
  A reliable estimate is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Foundation for Sport and the Arts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make it his policy to place advertisements for the posts of trustee for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts in the appropriate national journals or newspapers; what method and timescale he proposes to adopt for making appointments to the foundation; and if he will place in the Library a list of trustees to the foundation, together with the date on which they were appointed;

  (2) what measures are included in the draft articles of association for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts; if he will place a copy of the draft articles of association in the Library, and a copy of the final articles of association once these have been agreed; if he will list in full the bodies he proposes to consult before agreeing the articles of association; and if he will make it his policy to include in the articles of association details of the ratio of allocation of the foundation's resources between sport and the arts.

  Mr. Mellor
  The proposal from one of the pools promoters was for a foundation set up as a trust by all three member companies of the Pools Promoters Association. In the first instance, it will be for the association to consider the detailed terms of the trust deed 24
  although, as the Chancellor made clear in his Budget statement on 19 March, Official Report, column 175, we will wish to establish that these are satisfactory before we could agree to a cut in pool betting duty. The procedures for appointing trustees will similarly be for the members of the association, acting within the terms of the trust deed. I will discuss with the pools promoters how best to ensure that hon. Members can be informed of the details of the trust and of the names of the trustees.

  Heliports (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the reasons why Her Majesty's Customs and Excise now require a heliport on Sea Container house.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise neither require nor are seeking a heliport.

  Seafarers (Tax Incentives)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to extend to seafarers who work in the offshore supply and standby industries and serve equal periods at sea the concession announced in the Budget on tax incentives to citizens overseas in the merchant navy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend's Budget proposal to extend the existing special tax relief for seafarers applies to United Kingdom resident seafarers working on ships overseas. The Government have no plans to extend the relief to seafarers on ships operating on the United Kingdom continental shelf, which is regarded as part of the United Kingdom.

  Northern Ireland Customs Service
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the progress that has been made to date on proposals to decentralise work within the Northern Ireland Customs service.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have decided to relocate certain administrative VAT work to a new unit, which will employ around 100 staff, at Newry in Northern Ireland. Operations are expected to commence in late 1992.

  Economic Growth (Statistics)
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table, for each year from 1979 to the present time, showing(a) the official Treasury forecast for economic growth in that year made at the time of the Budget, together with (b) the contemporaneous consensus of outside forecasts and (c) the eventual recorded outcome.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 March 1991]:

  Annual growth in real GDP (per cent.)

  Treasury Budget forecasts

  Consensus of outside forecasts1

  Outturn

  1979

  0·3

  n/a

  2·8

  1980

  -2·5

  n/a

  -2·0

  1981

  -2·0

  n/a

  -1·2

  25

  Treasury Budget forecasts

  Consensus of outside forecasts1

  Outturn

  1982

  1·4

  0·4

  1·7

  1983

  2·0

  21·7

  3·8

  1984

  3·1

  2·5

  1·8

  1985

  3·3

  2·9

  3·8

  1986

  3·1

  2·4

  3·6

  1987

  3·0

  2·8

  4·4

  1988

  3·2

  2·7

  4·2

  1989

  2·3

  2·8

  1·7

  1990

  1·0

  1·4

  0·5

  1 Average of outside forecasts prior to Budget forecast. Coverage and number of forecasts has changed from year to year.

  2 In January 1983.

  Local Income Tax
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of local income tax would be needed to yield the same sum as that required from the community charge in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: The rate of local income tax needed would vary between local authorities depending on the budgeted yield of the community charge in particular areas, local income levels and the precise way in which the system operated.

  Accounting Practices
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of applying the proposal to extend the period for which a company can carry back a trading loss from one year to three years to losses in accounting periods ending(a) on or after 1 April 1990 and (b) on or after 1 October 1990; and what are the reasons why the necessary legislation will be introduced only at the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: The cost of applying the proposal to extend the period for which a company can carry back a trading loss from one year to three years is estimated at (a) £250 million in 1991–92 for accounting periods ending on or after 1st April 1990, and (b) £200 million in 1991–92 for accounting periods ending on or after 1st October 1990. The proposed legislation will be introduced at the Committee stage because it will not be possible to complete it in time for inclusion in the Finance Bill as published.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income to the Treasury it is anticipated that the increase of 2·5 per cent. in value added tax for 1991–92 will raise.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is published in table 1.1 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1991–92.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was raised in 1989–90 from value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A total of £29,483 million. Further information is available in the 1989–90 report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the balance of the cost of holiday accommodation for which deposits have been received by hotels and guest houses as part of an advanced booking contract, will be subject to the increased VAT rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The increased rate of VAT will apply to any balance outstanding from the date of the rate change—1 April—on holidays booked in advance. This is because the normal tax point for the supply of a holiday is when the services are performed by the hotel or guest house. While an earlier tax point is created by the receipt of a deposit—advance payment—it applies only in respect of the amount of money paid over. Guidance in VAT publications make this clear, as well as covering the position when there is a VAT rate change.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the tourism industry on the effect of the increase in VAT on advance holiday bookings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have received a number of representations. These have primarily concerned the need for a concession to be introduced whereby the old VAT rate of 15 per cent. would apply to any outstanding balances on holidays pre-booked before the date of the rate change, because otherwise the industry might have to absorb the increase. I am unable to accede to this request because of the existing tax point rules—which reflect EC law. The normal tax point for the supply of a holiday is when the services are performed by the hotel or guest house. While an earlier tax point is created by the receipt of a deposit—advance payment—this applies only to the amount of money paid over that time.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Association of British Travel Agents
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has recently had with the Association of British Travel Agents about financial protection for British holidaymakers booking holidays through the Association of British Travel Agents agents.

  Mr. Leigh
  ABTA has requested financial assistance from Government to help meet its liabilities arising from the collapse of Sun Living Ltd. I have made it clear that I do not consider it would be appropriate for public funds to be used for this purpose.

  Taurus
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition by the international stock exchange relating to Taurus to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has received such an application and I am pleased to say that approval has been given for an exhibition relating to Taurus from 1 to 5 July.

  Coats Viyella plc
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether he will make it his policy to take into account the level of gearing by Coats Viyella plc in mounting its bid for Tootal Group plc before reaching a decision on whether to allow this bid to proceed;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the relative level of gearing of a merged company consisting of Coats Viyella plc and Tootal Group plc if the current bid for Tootal Group is successful as against that which would have obtained if the two companies had merged by agreement in 1989; and what weight he will give to this in deciding whether to allow the bid to proceed.

  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the prospective gearing of the combined company if the acquisition of Tootal Group plc by Coats Viyella plc is successful and on how Coats Viyella plc intends to fund the consequential rationalisation costs of such a merger.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he is giving to the respective EC market shares for named brand textile products for Coats Viyella plc and Tootal Group plc in his consideration of the proposed takeover; if he will make it his policy to take into consideration the extent of which Coats Viyella plc has acted in accordance with the required accounting procedures in declaring its annual results for the last financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  In reaching his decision on whether to refer the proposed acquisition by Coats Viyella of Tootal Group to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take into account all relevant aspects of the proposal, in the light of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.
  28
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the figures supplied to his Department for the loss of profit made by(a) Coats Viyella and (b) Tootal Group plc from their respective United Kingdom manufacturing operations.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. In reaching his decision on whether or not to refer the proposed acquisition by Coats Viyella of Tootal Group to the MMC, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be taking into account the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. The director general's advice on merger references may contain commercially sensitive information, including financial information on the companies concerned, and is not made public.

  Immingham Coal Port
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the involvement of national Power and PowerGen in the financing and operation of the coal port development at Immingham to the Office of Fair Trading for consideration of the competition issues arising.

  Mr. Redwood
  Any agreement between the organisations concerned, if it is a registrable agreement under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. Any concerns in this respect should be put to the director general.

  Parent Companies
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government policy is on safeguarding the trading positions of companies whose parent company has collapsed.

  Mr. Redwood
  Subsidiary companies are separate legal entities and do not necessarily encounter the same difficulties as their parent company. However, there are provisions within insolvency law that enable companies in difficulty to formulate plans for a return to solvency. These provisions are available to all types of companies, including subisidiaries.

  East Timor
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he is prepared to publish in respect of the refusal of applications to export defence equipment to East Timor on grounds of their potential use against the civilian population in terms of numbers of such refusals, the proportion of applications or other illustrative figures.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the past 12 months, my Department has received no applications for export licences for goods consigned for East Timor.

  Consumer Debt
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what figures he has regarding trends in defaults on credit cards and other consumer debt.

  Mr. Leigh
  There are no national periodic statistics of defaults on credit cards. The Central Statistical Office collects statistics on amounts written off by finance houses
  29
  and other specialist credit grantors under agreements with consumers. The amounts written off in each of the last five years were:

  £ million

  1986

  243

  1987

  259

  1988

  276

  1989

  328

  1990

  460

  Consumer Councils
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the current members of the National Consumer Council, the Welsh Consumer Council and the Scottish Consumer Council, giving the relevant experience of each member; how many of the Councils are females; and what percentage of the total membership they comprise.

  Mr. Leigh
  The current members of the National Consumer Council (NCC), the Scottish Consumer Council (SCC), and the Welsh Consumer Council (WCC) are:

  NCC:

  Lady Wilcox (Chairman)

  Ann Scully (Vice Chairman)

  Rhiannon Bevan

  Professor Kumar Bhattacharyya

  Shiela Black, OBE

  Anthony Burton, OBE

  Professor Paul Fairest

  John Hughes

  Deirdre Hutton

  Mary McAnally

  Lady Anne McCollum

  John Mitchell

  Jill Moore, OBE

  John Nelson-Jones

  Josephine Turnbull

  Alan White

  Martin Wolf

  SCC:

  Deirdre Hutton (Chairman)

  Winifred Sherry, JP (Vice Chairman)

  Joan Aitken

  Patricia Bolton

  Patricia Cooper

  Kim Donald

  Peter Edmondson, OBE

  Cowan Ervine

  Bernard Forteath

  Kenneth Gilbert

  Christopher Harley

  Mary Kidd

  Gordon Smith

  Mark Steiner

  WCC:

  Rhiannon Bevan (Chairman)

  Nerys Biddulph (Vice Chairman)

  Ian Edge

  Dr. Arwel Edwards

  Jane Lloyd Hughes

  Irene John

  Gareth Morgan

  Ruth Parry

  Lydia Stephens

  Kenneth Thomas

  Ian Thompson

  Roderick Thurman

  Charlotte Watkins

  Information concerning the relevant experience of each member can be found in the annual reports of the councils.
  30
  Copies of the latest reports for the NCC and WCC are held in the Library of the House and I have arranged for that of the SCC to be placed there. Details of new members will be available from the Library in the annual reports due to be published in July.

  As at 15 April 1991, the figures for the number of females in each council, and the percentage of the total membership they comprise, were:

  Council

  Number of women

  Percentage of women on council

  NCC

  9

  53

  SCC

  7

  50

  WCC

  7

  54

  Debt Defaults
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the percentage of consumer debt defaults directly attributable to financial difficulties caused by redundancy, long-term sickness and unemployment.

  Mr. Leigh
  This information is not available.

  Iraq
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the United States Treasury's announcement on 1 April concerning companies and individuals in the United Kingdom and elsewhere said to be connected with Iraq.

  Mr. Lilley
  On 1 April 1991 the United States Department of the Treasury published a list of 52 companies and 37 individuals worldwide whom the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control had determined to be owned or controlled by or to be acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the Government of Iraq. Sanctions under United States domestic law were applied the same day to these companies and people. The effect was to make all those listed "specially designated nationals", to freeze their assets in the United States or in the hands of United States nationals or corporations outside the United States, and to make any unlicensed transaction with them a criminal offence under United States law. Thirty-three of the companies and 13 of the individuals were said to be based in the United Kingdom.

  The Government had become aware early in February that the United States Treasury was preparing for eventual publication a list of companies controlled by Iraqis, including companies based in the United Kingdom. Although my Department obtained a copy of a draft list, through our embassy in Washington, the United States Treasury published the list on its own authority. I am aware that some companies have already said that their inclusion was a mistake. If any company or individual based in the United Kingdom believes that it or he has been wrongly included, my Department should be informed. It has already taken up certain cases and any company which wishes to discuss its inclusion on the list with my Department should contact my officials without delay.

  The Government fully share the determination of the United States administration to enforce United Nations

  31
  sanctions against Iraq, and in particular to prevent the export of arms to Iraq. We have taken the following key measures.

  First, we are continuing to prevent the supply of goods to persons in Iraq, including companies controlled by Iraqi residents or Iraqi incorporated companies, or imports from Iraq in compliance with Security Council resolution 661. The legislation giving effect to the resolution applies to all persons and companies in the United Kingdom and to United Kingdom nationals and companies abroad. Compliance is carefully monitored. Very few breaches of this embargo have come to light, and these few cases are being pursued vigorously. The United States authorities have not alleged that the firms on this list have broken sanctions.

  Secondly, we are continuing to maintain controls which have the effect of freezing the assets in the United Kingdom of persons and companies normally resident in Iraq on or after 4 August 1990, also in compliance with Security Council resolution 661. This embargo, too, is rigorously enforced.

  Thirdly, for many years before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait exports of lethal military equipment to Iraq were prohibited by the Export of Goods (Control) Order. These controls, which apply to all persons and companies in the United Kingdom, remain in place, though they are in practice overtaken for the time being by the wider trade embargo introduced last August.

  Export Representative Services
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the rate of usage by businesses of the export representative service in the case of(a) the United States of America, (b) Canada and (c) West Germany for each month from March 1990 to date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: The information is given in the table.

  Usage by businesses of the export representative service has been:

  United States of America

  Canada

  West Germany1

  March 1990

  7

  2

  7

  April 1990

  4

  1

  11

  May 1990

  5

  2

  12

  June 1990

  9

  3

  13

  July 1990

  4

  1

  14

  August 1990

  5

  0

  8

  September 1990

  6

  2

  5

  October 1990

  6

  1

  7

  November 1990

  5

  4

  11

  December 1990

  3

  0

  5

  January 1991

  3

  1

  12

  February 1991

  4

  1

  7

  March 1991

  3

  2

  10

  1 Unified Germany from October 1990.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make available the findings of the working party on the structure of the film industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The film industry working party has not yet completed its work. We shall consider when to make the working party's findings available after the report has been received.

  Pharmaceutical Patents
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish his response to the European Commission's proposals for supplementary certificates for pharmaceutical patents.

  Mr. Leigh
  I am pleased to be able to make a statement indicating the Government's attitude to the Commission proposals for a regulation concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products.

  The Commission proposes that medicinal products—pharmaceuticals—which have taken over four years to bring to the market following patent application should be eligible for a period of supplementary protection, equal to the amount of patent life lost minus four years, subject to a maximum extension of 10 years. The broad result is that most medicinal products would be assured of 16 years effective protection.

  We fully recognise the importance of patent protection for pharmaceuticals. Medicines are costly to develop and often easy to copy. An innovative industry must have a proper opportunity to secure a fair return. The United States and Japan already provide for the extension of patent term for pharmaceutical products and we wish to see broadly similar arrangements in the Community to avoid any distortion of competition which might occur.

  The Commission's proposal needs to be considered in the context of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. The market exclusivity which would go with supplementary period of protection would delay the entry of competitors into the market. This could result in the cost of pharmaceuticals being higher than it otherwise would be. We need to strike the right balance between a proper reward for the innovator and the encouragement of a competitive market. We must also take into account the considerable cost of pharmaceuticals for the national health service.

  In judging the right period of supplementary protection we need to look at the historical evidence. The average period of protection for new chemical entities in the 1960s was around 13 years. More recent evidence on the products that matter in terms of company profits shows a similar overall position, and the level of research and development remains high. We do accept however that there is evidence of further decline in effective protection for all products in the last decade.

  Taking all factors into account, we have concluded that in the United Kingdom, at least, restoration of protection would be achieved by a supplementary certificate of the sort proposed by the Commission but having the effect that industry would be able to count on 13 years protected life subject to a maximum extension of five years. These figures would be more in line with United States and Japanese provisions and would prevent further erosion of the present effective patent term.

  Finally we think there may be a case for reducing the period of supplementary protection if the proprietor has not been diligent in obtaining marketing approval. United States law contains such a provision.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the current members of the Food Advisory Committee and give the relevant
  33
  experience of each member; how many of the Committee are females; and what percentage of the total membership they comprise.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The members of the Food Advisory Committee are:

  Dr. Ewan S. Page (Chairman) MA PhD BSc CBIM FBCS C eng FASA
  Vice Chancellor Reading University.

  Dr. Margret Ashwell Bsc (Hons) PhD FIFST FRSH
  Science Director British Nutrition Foundation.

  Mr. Dennis Cumming
  Director of Quality Assurance, Safeway PLC.

  Professor Douglas Georgala CBE PhD FIFST
  Director of Food Research, AFRC and Director of the Institute of Food Research.

  Dr. Tom Gorsuch OBE BSc PhD FIFST
  Former Director of Research and Quality Control, Colmans of Norwich (Retired).

  Professor Marian Hicks BSC PhD DSc FRCPath
  Science Director United Biscuits (UK) Ltd. Group Research and Development Centre.

  Mr. Roger Manley FITSA
  Director of Trading Standards, Cheshire County Council.

  Miss Patricia Mann FCAM, FIPA CBIM FRSA
  Head of External Affairs, J. Walter Thompson Group.

  Miss Jill Moore OBE
  Member of National Consumer Council and Vice President of National Federation of Consumer Groups.

  Dr. Bryan Nichols MSc PhD FIFST
  Legislation and Health Policy Manager, Van den Berghs and Jurgens Ltd.

  Mr. Ronald Nicolson M Chem A FIFST FIWEM C'Chem FRSC
  Regional Chemist, Public Analyst and Agricultural Analyst for the Regional Council of Strathclyde, and Public Analyst and Agricultural Analyst for the Western Isles Island Council.

  Mrs. Barbara Saunders BA (Hons)
  Freelance Consultant on Consumer Policy, Member of the European Commission's Consumer Consultative Committee.

  Mr. Tony Skrimshire CChem FRSC FIFST
  Director, Purchasing and Quality Assurance, H. J. Heinz Company Ltd.

  Professor Paul Turner MD BSc FRCP Hon FIBiol FFPM
  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

  Dr. Roger G. Whitehead BSc MA PhD FIBiol C Biol Hon MRCP
  Director of the Medical Research Council's Dunn Nutrition Unit, Cambridge, UK and the Gambia, West Africa.

  Five members are women, one third of the membership.

  This information is published approximately every six weeks with the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the committee.

  Community Charge Payments in Newport East and West: 1991–92

  District

  Community

  (1) Charge exc. Community Council Charge £

  (2) General Community Charge Reduction £

  (1)–(2) £

  Community Charge Reduction Scheme for Communities £

  Net Community Charge exc. Comm. Council Charge (a) £

  Average Community Council Charge (a) £

  Average Community Charge £

  Newport

  Average

  275

  140

  135

  11

  124

  1

  125

  Newport

  Allt-yr-yn

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Alway

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Beechwood

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Bettws

  275

  140

  135

  7

  128

  —

  —

  Newport

  Bishton

  275

  140

  135

  27

  108

  —

  —

  Newport

  Caerleon

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Coedkernew

  275

  140

  135

  15

  120

  —

  —

  Newport

  Gaer

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Goldcliffe

  275

  140

  135

  28

  107

  —

  —

  Newport

  Graig

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Langstone

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Liswerry

  275

  140

  135

  27

  108

  —

  —

  Newport

  Llanvaches

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

WALES

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is estimated that the cost of implementation would be less than £2 million. It has been decided, as in the rest of Great Britain, not to implement these sections, but the situation will be reviewed carefully when the impact can be assessed of the wider reforms set out in the White Paper "Caring for People: Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond"—Cm. 849.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the impact in Wales of the £140 reduction in community charge on the eligibility to claim housing benefit.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Community charge payers throughout Wales will benefit directly from the £62 million we have made available under the community charge reduction scheme and from the additional £300 million we have secured for the general reduction scheme which was announced on 19 March. The overall effect of these schemes, taken together with the realistic local government finance settlement we have made for 1991–92, is that the average charge payable in Wales will be no more than £95 before taking into account eligibility for community charge benefit. Eligibility to claim housing benefit is not affected by these arrangements.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the community charge payments that will be demanded in every ward in Newport, West and East, incorporating recent changes including transitional relief and community council rates.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is given in the table:
  35

  District

  Community

  (1) Charge exc. Community Council Charge £

  (2) General Community Charge Reduction £

  (1)–(2) £

  Community Charge Reduction Scheme for Communities £

  Net Community Charge exc. Comm. Council Charge (a) £

  Average Community Council Charge (a) £

  Average Community Charge £

  Newport

  Llanwern

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Malpas

  275

  140

  135

  15

  120

  —

  —

  Newport

  Marshfield

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Michaelstone-y-Fedw

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Nash

  275

  140

  135

  49

  86

  —

  —

  Newport

  Penhow

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Pillgwenlly

  275

  140

  135

  34

  101

  —

  —

  Newport

  Redwick

  275

  140

  135

  38

  97

  —

  —

  Newport

  Ringland

  275

  140

  135

  3

  132

  —

  —

  Newport

  Rogerstone

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  St. Julians

  275

  140

  135

  15

  120

  —

  —

  Newport

  Shaftesbury

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Stowe Hill

  275

  140

  135

  35

  100

  —

  —

  Newport

  Tredegar Park

  275

  140

  135

  0

  135

  —

  —

  Newport

  Victoria

  275

  140

  135

  53

  82

  —

  —

  Newport

  Wentlooge

  275

  140

  135

  46

  K9

  —

  —

  Monmouth

  Average

  244

  140

  104

  1

  103

  5

  108

  Monmouth

  Caldicot

  244

  140

  104

  0

  104

  —

  —

  Monmouth

  Magor with Undy

  244

  140

  104

  0

  104

  —

  —

  Monmouth

  Rogiet

  244

  140

  104

  19

  85

  —

  —

  Note (a): Information on individual Community Council charges is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total relief provided by the provisions of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill to those charge payers paying the standard charge in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Out of the total relief of about £300 million, standard charge payers will receive around £9 million.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 236, on cancelled operations, when he will write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I sent dated 12 April, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases have been issued by his Department each year for the past five years ended December 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department issued press releases for the Welsh Office and on behalf of other Government Departments as follows:

  Welsh Office

  Other departments

  1986

  814

  470

  1987

  779

  564

  1988

  960

  558

  1989

  815

  511

  1990

  881

  397

  Local Authority Child Care
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in Wales were received into local authority care where the specific cause was family homelessness, in every year since 1979 until the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of children received into care in Wales for the years ending 31 March 1979 to 31 March 1990, where the specific cause was that their family was homeless, is given in the following table:

  During year ending 31 March

  Due to Homelessness

  1979

  50

  1980

  47

  1981

  34

  1982

  35

  1983

  16

  1984

  15

  1985

  25

  1986

  10

  1987

  20

  1988

  14

  1989

  5

  1990

  18

  Research and Development
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was his Department's expenditure to encourage research and development for each year from 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 27 March 1991]: Expenditure on research and development by the Welsh Office since 1981–82, the earliest years for which figures are available, are given in the table.

  37

  Year

  £ million

  1981–82

  1·6

  1982–83

  1·5

  1983–84

  1·3

  1984–85

  1·6

  1985–86

  2·6

  1986–87

  3·5

  1987–88

  1·9

  1988–89

  1·9

  1989–90

  2·4

  1990–91

  12·7

  1 Estimated outturn.

  I shall continue to attach importance to the encouragement of research and development in Wales.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy in respect of the minimum number of years for which a community council in Wales should have been established before he is prepared to grant permission for its dissolution.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]:
  I shall consider any request for permission for the making of a community application for the dissolution of a community council in the light of all relevant circumstances.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the names of community councils in Wales of which he has been notified regarding their dissolution.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]:I have received copies of orders dissolving Vaynor and Rhoose community councils.

CIVIL SERVICE

  "Next Steps" Agencies
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress so far achieved by "next steps" agencies.

  Mr. Renton
  This month the number of "next steps" agencies reaches 50 with over 200,000 staff working on "next steps" lines. The following table sets out the agencies and announced candidates. Demanding financial and quality of service targets are being set and delivered. They show that the initiative is succeeding.

  Next steps—Executive agencies established as of 15 April 1991

  Number

  Building Research Establishment

  690

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  220

  Central Office of Information1

  730

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  580

  Chemical Biological Defence Establishment2

  580

  Civil Service College

  210

  Companies House

  1,150

  Defence Research Agency

  11,700

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts2

  2,100

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  5,450

  Driving Standards Agency

  2,050

  Employment Service

  35,600

  Forensic Science Service

  580

  Historic Royal Palaces

  300

  Historic Scotland

  580

  HMSO1

  3,300

  38

  Number

  Hydrographic Office2

  880

  Information Technology Services Agency

  3,350

  Insolvency Service

  1,450

  Intervention Board

  910

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  320

  Land Registry

  10,400

  Meteorological Office

  2,250

  Military Survey2

  850

  National Engineering Laboratory

  430

  National Physical Laboratory

  820

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  50

  Natural Resources Institute

  390

  NHS Estates

  120

  Occupational Health Service

  100

  Ordnance Survey

  2,500

  Patent Office

  1,150

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  70

  Radiocommunications Agency

  500

  RAF Maintenance2

  5,700

  Rate Collection Agency (Northern Ireland)

  280

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  320

  Registers of Scotland

  1,100

  Resettlement Agency

  510

  Royal Mint1

  1,050

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  230

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)2

  2,300

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  68,000

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  6,600

  Training & Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  1,700

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  1,200

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  70

  Vehicle Inspectorate1

  1,650

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  70

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  320

  50 in number

  183,460

  Customs & Excise3 (30 Executive Units)

  26,800

  210,260

  1 Trading Funds.

  2 Defence Support Agency. Figure does not include service personnel.

  3 Moving towards full operation on Next Steps lines following publication of Framework Documents.

  Next steps—activities announced by Departments as under consideration as of 15 April 1991

  Number

  ADAS Agency

  2,500

  Central Science Laboratory

  340

  Central Statistical Office

  1,050

  Chessington Computer Centre

  440

  Child Support Agency1

  not yet known

  Fuel Suppliers Branch

  30

  Planning Inspectorate

  570

  Pollution Inspectorate

  230

  Property Holdings

  1,650

  Public Record Office

  430

  RAF Training2

  2,500

  Royal Parks

  600

  Teachers' Pensions Branch

  300

  The Buying Agency3

  120

  Valuation Office

  5,250

  Youth Treatment Service

  210

  Ordnance Survey (Northern Ireland)

  200

  Social Security Operations (Northern Ireland)

  5,000

  18 in number

  21,420

  Inland Revenue4 (excluding Valuation Office)

  59,800

  Total

  81,220

  1 From April 1993 the Agency is estimated to require 4,500 staff, 1,500 of which will come from the Social Security Benefits Agency.

  39
  2 Defence Support Agency. Figure does not include service personnel.

  3 Trading Fund.

  4 Moving towards full operation on "next steps" lines in accordance with the action plan of February 1991: 33 Executive Offices by April 1992, each with a framework document, sharper accountabilities and wider managerial freedom.

  Staffing figures are based on staff in post 1 October 1990. Many other areas are under consideration.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list in the Official Report, when each of the "next steps" agencies so far established will produce a report showing its results compared with the performance criteria laid down in its framework document.

  Mr. Renton
  Agencies will publish their annual reports and accounts as soon as possible after the end of the financial year. Those reports will include information on achievement of key performance targets.

  Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met civil service trade union representatives about pay and conditions of service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I meet civil service trade union representatives from time to time to discuss a variety of issues.

  Agencies
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what consideration he has given to putting out agencies to private management.

  Mr. Renton
  Ministers continue to keep under review the basis on which Government services are provided. The feasibility of immediate privatisation has been considered and rejected in the case of all agencies created so far. It cannot be ruled out, however, that after a period of years agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation.

  EC Nationals
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he plans to make changes to the legislation which governs the employment in the civil service of nationals of other member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Renton
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 December 1990, c. 295]: I have today laid before Parliament, a draft Order in Council which, subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament, will allow nationals of other member states of the European Community and certain members of their families to be employed in the civil service, in posts other than those posts which are part of the public service within the meaning of article 48(4) of the EEC treaty. The Order in Council makes similar provision in relation to the Northern Ireland civil service, thus ensuring that the same position is achieved in the whole of the United Kingdom.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from international doctors about disease in Iraq.
  40
  The Prime Minister
  We have received a number of reports about conditions in Iraq, notably that of United Nations Under Secretary-General Ahtisaari. We have announced a pledge of £20 million to be spent partly bilaterally and multilaterally to alleviate the human tragedy provoked by Saddam Hussein. We are also funding daily airlifts to the refugees at a cost of £1 million per week. These contributions are in addition to earlier substantial pledges to the International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nation agencies' appeals.

  Chile
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during the official visit of the President of Chile, the Government will offer improved terms of trade for Chilean exports, and increased transfer of technology and financial support for his programmes.

  The Prime Minister
  Chile will benefit from any market access concessions negotiated with the European Community during the GATT round. We increased our bilateral technical co-operation funds for Chile following the accession of President Aylwin's Government and are presently discussing a number of projects.

  President Aylwin's visit will lead to closer links between Britain and Chile. I was able to pay tribute to the President's achievement in restoring and consolidating democracy.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to use nuclear weapons first in response to a conventional attack.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1990 NATO London declaration made clear that, while NATO will never in any circumstances be the first to use force, nuclear weapons will continue to fulfil an essential role in the overall strategy of the alliance to prevent war by ensuring that there are no circumstances in which nuclear retaliation in response to military action might be discounted.

  Migrant Workers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards ratification of the new international convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom does not intend to ratify the convention on the protection of migrant workers and their families.

  Vehicle Theft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up a joint working party of the Home Office and Department of Transport to investigate the possibility of designing cars to be more resistant to theft.

  The Prime Minister
  The Home Office and Department of Transport have investigated ways in which the security of cars could be improved and discussions are in progress between these Departments, and with the motor manufacturers, on how best their findings and recommendations may be implemented. Home Office crime prevention publicity, particularly during crime prevention
  41
  week this week, aims to increase awareness of the need for effective car security measures. My right Friend the Home Secretary published today a car theft index which allows owners to see which models are particularly subject to theft.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Imported Vegetables
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list those vegetables of temperate country origin whose importers represent more

  Imports

  Output

  Imports (tonnage) as a percentage of

  '000 tonnes

  Value

  '000 tonnes

  Value

  Home consumption

  Output

  Vegetable

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Asparagus

  1·9

  4·3

  1·1

  3·1

  62

  162

  Beans

  135·5

  68·1

  61·9

  21·5

  74

  219

  Celery

  30·2

  10·5

  74·6

  32·4

  29

  41

  Cucumbers

  62·5

  41·0

  87·4

  37·8

  42

  71

  Peas

  28·1

  12·6

  222·5

  50·4

  27

  13

  Lettuce

  77·8

  46·3

  193·8

  67·8

  29

  40

  Salad Onions

  12·4

  2·9

  27·4

  23·8

  33

  45

  Sweet Peppers

  41·5

  39·2

  2·5

  2·3

  95

  1,633

  Tomatoes

  272·5

  154·6

  141·0

  68·7

  67

  193

  Notes:

  i. Separate data are not available for radishes.

  ii. The Channel Islands are treated as part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of overseas trade statistics but are not covered within the output figures.

  iii. Estimates of output (production less on-farm waste) have been quoted as being the more comparable with imports.

  iv. Peas and beans include dried peas and beans for human consumption.

  Farm and Conservation Grants
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers he expects to benefit from his plan to drop the requirement that farmers applying for grants under the farm and conservation grants scheme must receive acknowledgment of their prior notification form before incurring costs on farm waste and traditional buildings projects.

  Mr. Curry
  All applicants for these grants would benefit from the simplified application procedures. A number of farmers who had previously been turned down for grant would also be in a position to re-apply when the rules are changed, but exact figures could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that his working group reviewing the environmental impact of hill livestock compensatory allowances should meet in public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We are still considering whether existing environmental benefits afforded by HLCAs should be made more specific. We propose to consult all interested parties in due course.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will write to all local authorities requesting them to increase monitoring for BSE in slaughterhouses and livestock markets.
  42
  than 25 per cent. of United Kingdom consumption, together with values and percentages of importers as a proportion of domestic production;

  (2) if he will list the value of lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, spring onions and radishes (a) imported into and (b) produced in the United Kingdom in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what is (a) as a percentage of (b).

  Mr. Curry
  The requested information is as follows:

  Mr. Gummer
  No. The Government already have a fully effective system in place.

  Milk
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of milk output in the EC and the level of consumption of milk and dairy products within the EC.

  Mr. Curry
  Dairy cows' milk production in the EC in 1990 was 109,102,800 tonnes—provisional figure. Consumption of milk and the major dairy products was as follows:

  '000 tonnes

  1989

  1990

  11991

  Liquid milk and fresh products

  —

  31,051·0

  31,237·5

  Butter

  —

  1,468·5

  1,420·5

  Cheese

  —

  4,621·9

  4,719·9

  Skimmed milk powder and buttermilk powder (including for animal feed)

  1,130

  —

  —

  1 Forecast

  Source: EC Quarterly Questionnaire and MMB (Dairy Facts and Figures)

  Sugar
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of sugar consumption and sugar production within the EC.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC Commission's latest preliminary forecast for the year ending 30 September 1991 put production from sugar grown within the Community at 15·9 million tonnes. Additionally, the Community is
  43
  forecast to import some 1·5 million tonnes from African, Caribbean and Pacific and other countries, most of which is raw sugar for refining. EC consumption of sugar from all sources is estimated at 11·8 million tonnes.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Service (Statistics)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will supply for each local education authority information on(a) the total revenue expenditure of the relevant council on all services, (b) the total revenue expenditure on all education services, (c) the total revenue expenditure on further education and sixth form colleges, (d) the percentage of item (a) represented by items (b) and (c), (e) the total capital expenditure of the relevant council on all services, (f) the total capital expenditure on all education services, (g) the total capital expenditure on further education and sixth form colleges, (h) the percentage of item (e) represented by items (f) and (g), (i) the total number of, whole-time equivalent, employees of the relevant councils, (j) the total number of whole-time employees engaged in providing the education services and (k) the total number of equivalent employees working in further education and sixth form colleges, and (l) the percentage of item (i) represented by items (j) and (k).

  Mr. Fallon
  The readily available information is shown in the tables. The financial information is taken from authorities' spending returns and is for 1988–89, the latest year for which data are available. The information on numbers of employees is as collected by the joint staffing watch, and is for March 1990.

  Information on further education and sixth form colleges is not collected on a comparable basis. Authorities' spending returns do not separate expenditure on sixth form colleges from that on other secondary schools. Information returned on further education colleges does not separately identify those institutions which subsequently transferred to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  Table 1 Revenue expenditure, 1988–89

  LEA

  Net current expenditure on all services £ million

  Net current expenditure on education £ million

  Education as percentage of all services Percentage

  Barking

  83·2

  45·7

  54·9

  Barnet

  143·7

  79·1

  55·0

  Bexley

  99·8

  62·7

  62·8

  Brent

  185·9

  104·2

  56·1

  Bromley

  130·4

  73·3

  56·2

  Croydon

  162·9

  97·0

  59·5

  Ealing

  189·8

  99·8

  52·6

  Enfield

  132·8

  79·4

  59·8

  Haringey

  147·8

  79·6

  53·8

  Harrow

  103·5

  63·6

  61·4

  Havering

  116·1

  70·6

  60·8

  Hillingdon

  128·2

  69·2

  54·0

  Hounslow

  123·5

  69·6

  56·3

  Kingston·upon·Thames

  68·8

  36·5

  53·1

  Merton

  86·6

  45·4

  52·4

  Newham

  163·6

  85·1

  52·0

  Redbridge

  113·2

  62·8

  55·5

  Richmond·upon·Thames

  75·4

  37·7

  50·0

  Sutton

  81·5

  45·8

  56·2

  44

  LEA

  Net current expenditure on all services £ million

  Net current expenditure on education £ million

  Education as percentage of all services Percentage

  Waltham Forest

  142·2

  76·9

  54·0

  ILEA

  1,001·7

  950·5

  94·9

  Birmingham

  547·5

  312·1

  570

  Coventry

  158·5

  100·7

  63·6

  Dudley

  136·2

  88·0

  64·6

  Sandwell

  163·5

  102·9

  62·9

  Solihull

  90·4

  59·1

  65·4

  Walsall

  133·4

  93·1

  69·8

  Wolverhampton

  141·3

  88·6

  62·7

  Knowsley

  96·3

  61·8

  64·2

  Liverpool

  290·4

  171·1

  58·9

  St. Helens

  96·6

  61·7

  63·9

  Sefton

  136·4

  84·1

  61·7

  Wirral

  173·6

  108·5

  62·5

  Bolton

  130·5

  80·4

  61·6

  Bury

  85·1

  56·0

  65·8

  Manchester

  281·9

  164·3

  58·3

  Oldham

  116·6

  71·7

  61·5

  Rochdale

  119·9

  72·0

  60·1

  Salford

  126·2

  73·5

  58·3

  Stockport

  132·3

  83·7

  63·2

  Tameside

  114·8

  66·7

  58·1

  Trafford

  101·4

  62·8

  61·9

  Wigan

  150·7

  101·5

  67·4

  Barnsley

  104·9

  64·1

  61·1

  Doncaster

  147·6

  95·6

  64·8

  Rotherham

  127·7

  81·2

  63·6

  Sheffield

  261·9

  160·4

  61·2

  Bradford

  277·0

  170·9

  61·7

  Calderdale

  105·7

  62·6

  59·2

  Kirklees

  196·8

  125·3

  63·7

  Leeds

  331·0

  212·0

  64·0

  Wakefield

  156·3

  94·2

  60·3

  Gateshead

  104·1

  60·3

  57·9

  Newcastle·upon·Tyne

  157·7

  87·4

  55·4

  North Tyneside

  108·0

  64·1

  59·3

  South Tyneside

  86·8

  52·6

  60·6

  Sunderland

  151·5

  87·8

  57·9

  Isles of Scilly

  1·4

  0·9

  63·4

  Avon

  449·7

  258·9

  57·6

  Bedfordshire

  257·1

  163·9

  63·8

  Berkshire

  321·9

  195·9

  60·9

  Buckinghamshire

  298·5

  189·1

  63·4

  Cambridgeshire

  288·9

  183·0

  63·3

  Cheshire

  461·5

  286·1

  62·0

  Cleveland

  329·6

  196·2

  59·5

  Cornwall

  202·5

  120·8

  59·6

  Cumbria

  253·0

  149·0

  58·9

  Derbyshire

  486·2

  297·6

  61·2

  Devon

  435·9

  249·6

  57·3

  Dorset

  263·4

  151·0

  57·3

  Durham

  295·5

  178·2

  60·3

  East Sussex

  282·2

  153·1

  54·3

  Essex

  698·9

  431·9

  61·8

  Gloucestershire

  240·1

  146·3

  60·9

  Hampshire

  671·9

  412·5

  61·4

  Hereford and Worcester

  284·8

  174·0

  61·1

  Hertfordshire

  476·1

  297·1

  62·4

  Humberside

  461·3

  277·2

  60·1

  Isle of Wight

  56·1

  34·1

  60·7

  Kent

  661·8

  385·2

  58·2

  Lancashire

  697·9

  421·6

  60·4

  Leicestershire

  438·6

  273·7

  62·4

  Lincolnshire

  260·0

  154·9

  59·6

  Norfolk

  312·4

  185·7

  59·5

  North Yorkshire

  311·8

  193·8

  62·1

  Northamptonshire

  276·4

  171·5

  62·0

  Northumberland

  136·1

  92·5

  68·0

  Nottinghamshire

  513·9

  308·4

  60·0

  Oxfordshire

  236·1

  144·6

  61·3

  Shropshire

  190·5

  123·0

  64·6

  Somerset

  208·2

  128·7

  61·8

  Staffordshire

  464·3

  296·9

  63·9

  45

  LEA

  Net current expenditure on all services £ million

  Net current expenditure on education £ million

  Education as percentage of all services Percentage

  Suffolk

  266·4

  163·5

  61·4

  Surrey

  418·7

  253·4

  60·5

  Warwickshire

  230·3

  142·4

  61·8

  West Sussex

  276·8

  157·7

  57·0

  Wiltshire

  249·5

  152·4

  61·1

  Table 2 Capital Expenditure, 1988–89

  LEA

  Total Capital Expenditure on all services £ million

  Total Capital Expenditure on Education £ million

  Education as percentage of all services

  Barking

  25·2

  2·3

  9·1

  Barnet

  39·7

  5·1

  12·8

  Bexley

  20·4

  3·5

  17·2

  Brent

  52·8

  6·3

  11·9

  Bromley

  46·7

  6·9

  14·8

  Croydon

  58·7

  6·8

  11·6

  Ealing

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Enfield

  56·1

  5·3

  9·4

  Haringey

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Harrow

  26·5

  5·4

  20·4

  Havering

  28·8

  3·8

  13·2

  Hillingdon

  43·4

  8·5

  19·5

  Hounslow

  38·6

  6·0

  15·5

  Kingston·upon·Thames

  28·0

  9·0

  232·1

  Merton

  28·5

  3·3

  11·6

  Newham

  58·6

  7·3

  12·5

  Redbridge

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Richmond·upon·Thames

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Sutton

  31·4

  3·4

  10·8

  Waltham Forest

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Birmingham

  179·0

  5·5

  3·1

  ILEA

  30·5

  30·3

  99·3

  Coventry

  56·7

  12·9

  22·8

  Dudley

  32·3

  4·2

  13·0

  Sandwell

  65·2

  2·2

  3·4

  Solihull

  201

  2·7

  13·4

  Walsall

  41·6

  3·2

  7·7

  Wolverhampton

  37·2

  3·9

  10·5

  Knowsley

  31·0

  1·6

  5·2

  Liverpool

  84·0

  10·8

  12·9

  St. Helens

  15·5

  2·4

  15·5

  Sefton

  18·0

  1·9

  10·6

  Wirral

  40·1

  5·3

  13·2

  Bolton

  35·0

  3·4

  9·7

  Bury

  12·3

  1·1

  8·9

  Manchester

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Oldham

  31·6

  2·6

  8·2

  Rochdale

  35·3

  2·8

  7·9

  Salford

  53·0

  4·4

  8·3

  Stockport

  24·3

  3·3

  13·6

  Tameside

  18·8

  2·7

  14·4

  Table 3

  Employee numbers—March 1990

  All services

  Education

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Barking

  4,716

  2,940

  2,096

  1,992

  Barnet

  6,858

  4,524

  3,317

  3,576

  Bexley

  4,735

  4,026

  2,334

  2,708

  Brent

  7,777

  2,565

  3,380

  1,730

  Bromley

  5,546

  3,485

  2,803

  2,371

  Croydon

  7,898

  5,204

  3,623

  4,382

  Ealing

  8,150

  4,267

  3,456

  3,160

  Enfield

  6,199

  4,121

  3,004

  3,185

  Haringey

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a

  Harrow

  4,792

  4,009

  2,351

  3,002

  Havering

  5,649

  4,614

  2,734

  3,212

  Hillingdon

  6,050

  4,573

  2,514

  2,744

  46

  LEA

  Total Capital Expenditure on all services £ million

  Total Capital Expenditure on Education £ million

  Education as percentage of all services

  Trafford

  18·0

  1·6

  8·9

  Wigan

  30·3

  4·0

  13·2

  Barnsley

  35·2

  1·9

  5·4

  Doncaster

  40·8

  1·3

  3·2

  Rotherham

  24·4

  3·1

  12·7

  Sheffield

  123·4

  21·8

  17·7

  Bradford

  54·4

  12·1

  22·2

  Calderdale

  17·3

  3·3

  191

  Kirklees

  35·3

  5·9

  16·7

  Leeds

  94·5

  19·5

  20·6

  Wakefield

  38·9

  5·9

  15·2

  Gateshead

  39·8

  4·2

  10·6

  Newcastle

  54·5

  8·1

  14·9

  North Tyneside

  34·0

  3·2

  9·4

  South Tyneside

  32·5

  3·8

  11·7

  Sunderland

  39·4

  7·6

  19·3

  Isles of Scilly

  ·2

  ·1

  50·0

  Avon

  28·6

  9·7

  33·9

  Bedfordshire

  23·6

  5·5

  23·3

  Berkshire

  56·5

  261

  46·2

  Buckinghamshire

  19·5

  8·6

  44·1

  Cambridgeshire

  48·4

  17·1

  35·3

  Cheshire

  70·9

  28·5

  40·2

  Cleveland

  25·3

  6·9

  27·3

  Cornwall

  21·3

  7·4

  34·7

  Cumbria

  20·2

  5·9

  29·2

  Derbyshire

  39·1

  15·3

  39·1

  Devon

  43·8

  13·3

  30·4

  Dorset

  30·4

  6·5

  21·4

  Durham

  17·4

  4·8

  27·6

  East Sussex

  31·8

  14·0

  44·0

  Essex

  70·7

  24·0

  33·9

  Gloucestershire

  27·9

  9·2

  33·0

  Hampshire

  78·1

  34·2

  43·8

  Hereford and Worcester

  17·5

  7·3

  41·7

  Hertfordshire

  41·3

  21·1

  511

  Humberside

  43·8

  12·4

  28·3

  Isle of Wight

  9·0

  2·4

  26·7

  Kent

  68·9

  16·1

  23·4

  Lancashire

  55·4

  17·4

  31·4

  Leicester

  41·6

  14·9

  35·8

  Lincolnshire

  22·5

  7·9

  35·1

  Norfolk

  24·9

  8·2

  32·9

  North Yorkshire

  38·7

  9·6

  24·8

  Northamptonshire

  23·9

  5·2

  21·8

  Northumberland

  12·1

  2·4

  19·8

  Nottinghamshire

  37·4

  7·4

  19·8

  Oxfordshire

  28·9

  11·0

  38·1

  Shropshire

  16·5

  5·3

  32·1

  Somerset

  27·4

  5·1

  18·6

  Staffordshire

  38·3

  9·5

  24·8

  Suffolk

  35·2

  11·7

  33·2

  Surrey

  64·5

  25·0

  38·8

  Warwickshire

  22·0

  3·9

  17·7

  West Sussex

  27·8

  9·8

  35·3

  Wiltshire

  12·8

  4·8

  37·5

  47

  All services

  Education

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Hounslow

  6,446

  3,739

  2,860

  2,614

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  3,580

  2,572

  1,740

  1,873

  Merton

  3,300

  1,525

  1,641

  849

  Newham

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a

  Redbridge

  5,042

  3,571

  2,235

  2,399

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  3,745

  2,255

  1,527

  1,602

  Sutton

  3,587

  2,469

  1,784

  1,886

  Waltham Forest

  6,765

  5,021

  3,116

  2,844

  ILEA

  37,899

  38,283

  37,899

  38,283

  Birmingham

  29,826

  20,890

  12,944

  14,300

  Coventry

  9,902

  7,881

  4,626

  5,174

  Dudley

  7,982

  6,117

  4,092

  3,945

  Sandwell

  11,302

  7,456

  4,948

  5,130

  Solihull

  4,352

  4,268

  2,543

  3,070

  Walsall

  8,940

  6,088

  4,858

  4,481

  Wolverhampton

  9,084

  5,831

  4,118

  3,846

  Knowsley

  5,488

  3,211

  2,481

  2,264

  Liverpool

  19,066

  10,094

  7,439

  7,019

  St. Helens

  5,791

  3,356

  2,880

  2,187

  Sefton

  7,554

  4,848

  3,816

  3,485

  Wirral

  8,982

  7,791

  4,395

  5,326

  Bolton

  7,565

  5,475

  3,727

  3,448

  Bury

  4,431

  3,281

  2,421

  2,026

  Manchester

  23,159

  11,869

  8,330

  8,459

  Oldham

  86,971

  4,014

  3,653

  2,792

  Rochdale

  6,907

  4,136

  3,390

  2,348

  Salford

  7,937

  5,248

  3,731

  3,332

  Stockport

  6,901

  5,867

  3,532

  3,824

  Tameside

  6,849

  2,992

  4,649

  1,894

  Trafford

  4,780

  3,985

  2,422

  2,189

  Wigan

  8,373

  5,605

  4,613

  3,622

  Barnsley

  6,724

  5,360

  2,817

  3,033

  Doncaster

  8,492

  6,999

  4,221

  4,634

  Rotherham

  7,643

  6,064

  3,714

  3,580

  Sheffield

  18,871

  10,948

  6,380

  7,270

  Bradford

  14,516

  13,626

  7,947

  9,765

  Calderdale

  5,248

  4,769

  2,649

  3,057

  Kirklees

  10,760

  9,375

  5,393

  6,269

  Leeds

  19,533

  15,676

  9,878

  9,413

  Wakefield

  9,906

  6,936

  4,136

  4,197

  Gateshead

  7,576

  4,131

  2,895

  1,991

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  11,122

  7,582

  4,385

  4,935

  North Tyneside

  6,521

  4,848

  2,745

  3,100

  South Tyneside

  6,071

  3,016

  2,615

  1,941

  Sunderland

  10,778

  6,282

  4,470

  3,838

  Avon

  17,248

  17,969

  11,435

  13,234

  Bedfordshire

  9,173

  11,181

  6,252

  8,527

  Berkshire

  12,026

  11,804

  8,045

  9,302

  Buckinghamshire

  10,086

  12,265

  6,871

  9,590

  Cambridgeshire

  11,527

  11,450

  7,908

  8,867

  Cheshire

  18,010

  18,679

  12,105

  13,774

  Cleveland

  13,542

  12,963

  9,229

  9,647

  Cornwall

  8,231

  7,566

  5,109

  5,494

  Cumbria

  10,203

  9,071

  6,080

  7,015

  Derbyshire

  19,800

  23,551

  13,180

  16,748

  Devon

  16,672

  17,315

  10,148

  12,835

  Dorset

  9,916

  9,997

  6,394

  7,167

  Durham

  14,155

  10,616

  8,788

  7,959

  East Sussex

  10,659

  11,934

  6,396

  8,392

  Essex

  23,789

  29,242

  16,137

  22,444

  Gloucestershire

  9,865

  8,618

  6,580

  6,512

  Hampshire

  23,090

  28,370

  16,603

  22,423

  Hereford and Worcester

  11,146

  9,174

  7,304

  6,910

  Hertfordshire

  16,589

  20,749

  12,160

  16,149

  Humberside

  17,756

  18,770

  11,671

  13,152

  Isle of Wight

  2,397

  1,746

  1,443

  1,215

  Kent

  24,012

  20,022

  16,495

  14,659

  Lancashire

  27,846

  25,388

  17,652

  18,380

  Leicestershire

  16,764

  17,691

  11,170

  13,439

  Lincolnshire

  9,391

  8,138

  6,202

  5,442

  Norfolk

  11,651

  12,864

  8,103

  9,377

  North Yorkshire

  11,860

  12,971

  7,780

  9,559

  Northamptonshire

  9,686

  12,076

  6,865

  9,139

  Northumberland

  6,732

  5,304

  4,149

  3,749

  Nottinghamshire

  20,357

  19,053

  13,462

  14,336

  Oxfordshire

  8,338

  9,096

  5,454

  6,813

  Shropshire

  7,427

  7,909

  5,101

  6,245

  48

  49

  All services

  Education

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Somerset

  8,510

  9,819

  5,443

  7,386

  Staffordshire

  19,001

  22,272

  12,913

  17,453

  Suffolk

  9,740

  12,434

  6,853

  9,344

  Surrey

  13,657

  12,763

  9,377

  10,106

  Warwickshire

  8,217

  10,596

  5,795

  8,227

  West Sussex

  9,675

  12,507

  6,284

  9,510

  Wiltshire

  9,401

  12,075

  6,214

  9,452

  Note:

  No full-time equivalents of the part-time numbers are available, and the total part-time staff figures provide a general indication only of the actual amount of part-time employment. Since the full-time equivalents of part-time employees cannot be calculated, neither can meaningful percentages of totals accounted for by the education sector.

  Erasmus Programme
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many United Kingdom students have received awards under the Erasmus programme; and if he will list in rank order the number of students from each United Kingdom institution of higher education whose period of study in another EC country has been funded under the Erasmus programme.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We expect, by the end of the 1990–91 academic year, some 10,500 United Kingdom students to have received student mobility support under the Erasmus programme. The listing of individual institutions has been placed in the Library.

  Expenditure (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average cost of educating(a) a primary school pupil and (b) a secondary school pupil in the local education authorities within South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Fallon
  In 1988–89, the latest year for which information is available, the school-based expenditure per nursery and primary pupil and per secondary pupil derived from information returned by the authorities was as shown in the table. Figures for nursery schools and for primary schools are not collected separately.

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £ million (1990–91 prices)

  Academic-academic related staff

  1,170·3

  1,218·9

  1,255·0

  1,262·1

  Other staff

  530·3

  532·0

  522·6

  521·6

  Total as a percentage of United Kingdom universities' total recurrent expenditure from general funds

  66·8

  67·9

  67·3

  66·2

  Note:

  1990–91 prices are derived using GDP deflator assumptions based on the university academic year.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will fund a survey to compare the pay of university technicians with people in similar jobs in the private and public sectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No. This is a matter for the employers to consider and fund if it is deemed necessary.50

  Nursery and Primary schools £

  Secondary schools £

  Barnsley

  1,065

  1,645

  Doncaster

  1,175

  1,655

  Rotherham

  1,125

  1,635

  Sheffield

  1,230

  1,810

  University Salaries
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals; and whether he is willing to agree to their request for additional funds for university pay.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on 4 February 1991. It is for the employers and the Association of University Teachers to draw up a pay settlement within the resources available.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the total pay bill in 1990 prices for university(a) support staff and (b) teachers in each year from 1985 to 1990, and express the overall pay bill as a percentage of the total universities' general recurrent expenditure in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is available only to 1988–89 and is given in the table.

  Geography
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the differences between the programmes of study for geography in the documents referred to in his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 277, and the recommendations of the National Curriculum Council's consultative report; what priority he gives to work on issue-based topics and inquiry-based learning in geography; and if he will make a statement.
  51
  Mr. Eggar
  The differences are clear from a comparison of the documents. There is no prescription as to the teaching methods to be used in geography, so that issues-based approaches may, if teachers so decide, be used to deliver the statutory requirements. An inquiry approach is required to form an important part of children's work in geography.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom contribution to the European Space Agency's Hipparcos project.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The United Kingdom contributes to the ESA Hipparcos project through its subscription to the mandatory science programme of the European Space Agency. As a member of an international consortium, the United Kingdom also supports the analysis of data received from the satellite.

  Truancy
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take to reduce truancy rates in schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have today issued for consultation a draft circular on school attendance together with draft regulations about pupil registration and the publication of information about rates of attendance.

  Truancy needs to be tackled vigorously to ensure that the national curriculum and other educational reforms benefit all pupils. Governors, parents and prospective parents need to have the facts on school attendance. My right hon. Friends therefore propose that schools should be required to publish annually the rates of unauthorised absence for each year group, for each term of the preceding school year.

  We expect schools to give the highest priority to maximising rates of attendance, and to work with parents, local education authorities and others to achieve that objective.

  Local education authorities and other appropriate educational bodies have been invited to comment on the proposals with a view to regulations being made in the summer.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government have taken to secure the release of South African political prisoners since August 1990.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have repeatedly called on the South African Government to free all political prisoners. We welcome the fact that over 300 political prisoners have been released since February 1990.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to secure 52
  the implementation of the United Nations declaration on South Africa adopted at the 16th special session of the General Assembly.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to encourage all sides in South Africa to maintain progress towards the broad aims set out in the United Nations declaration.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the South African Government concerning the immunity from prosecution of political exiles returning to South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have urged the South African Government to reach agreement with the parties concerned on sensible arrangements for the return of political exiles to South Africa.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations the Government have made to the South African Government concerning the implementation of section B, clause 8c, of the United Nations declaration on South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We maintain regular contacts with all sides in South Africa. We have expressed to them the hope that full constitutional negotiations towards a non-racial, democratic society may begin as soon as possible. It is for the parties to those negotiations to decide how the new constitution should be drawn up and adopted.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the South African Government on the Internal Security Act.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have often stressed to the South African Government the need to repeal those legislative provisions, such as detention without trial, which are contrary to international norms of human rights. The South African Government are currently conducting a review of all such legislation, including the Internal Security Act.

  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of funds available to the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Some $567 million has been pledged by OECD, OPEC and developing countries to the third replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Negotiations on the replenishment were completed in mid-1989, but it became effective only last December. Together with estimated income from loan repayments, investments and other sources. IFAD should have resources totalling in excess of $1,200 million for commitment over the next three years.

  IFAD's special programme for Africa, which attained the $300 million target set in 1986 with voluntary contributions from OECD countries, will be fully committed early this year. IFAD's governing council in May will be invited to consider proposals for extending the programme for a further, and final, phase.

  Sudan
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Britain's humanitarian assistance to Sudan.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to provide substantial humanitarian assistance to Sudan. On 2 April I approved a new package of food and other emergency assistance worth £5·5 million. I am today announcing provision of a further 5,000 tonnes of food aid at an estimated cost of £1·7 million. This brings the total of our response to the present emergency to £17·4 million, which includes 55,550 tonnes of food aid, and to nearly £39 million since the beginning of 1989. I expect to provide more aid as the year goes on.

ENERGY

  Immingham Port
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will request the Director General of OFFER to undertake a review of the involvement of National Power and PowerGen in the financing and operation of the port development at Immingham, with respect to the policy of securing economic supply of electricity by means of competition between generators.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. These are commercial matters for the companies concerned.

  British Gas
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to British Gas and the environment to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 22 to 26 July.

ENVIRONMENT

  Community Charge
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he estimates will be the yield of the community charge in England in 1991–92 allowing for the effect of the community charge reduction schemes.

  Mr. Portillo
  The community charge is expected to yield about £7·4 billion in England in 1991–92. About £1 billion of this will be met by community charge benefit.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that the £140 reduction of community charge announced on 19 March does not lead to any reduction in the benefits previously provided for those people entitled to rebates.

  Mr. Key
  All headline community charges for 1991–92 will be reduced by £140 as a result of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill. The amount of community charge benefit received by charge payers will be lower as a result, but all charge payers, including those on benefit, should have reduced bills.
  54
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would have been the community charge in the London boroughs of(a) Wandsworth and (b) Westminster had they received in 1990–91 Government grants per head of relevant population of £448.

  Mr. Key
  Since 1 April 1990, in contrast to previous arrangements, revenue support grant has been paid to the receiving authority for each area in support jointly of its own expenditure and that of the precepting authorities in the area. For this reason it is inappropriate to attempt to estimate the community charge that Wandsworth and Westminster would have set had they received in 1990–91 Government grants per head of relevant population of £448.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the proposed spending of £4·3 billion on the poll tax is additional to transitional relief grant and rebate subsidy.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: The figure of £4·3 billion represents broadly the switch from local to central taxation. It is estimated that the gross cost of community charge grant will be some £5·6 billion in Great Britain. Because many people are already getting extensive help with paying their charges at the levels set by authorities the general reduction will result in savings of some £1·3 billion on reduction scheme grant and benefit subsidy.

  Jet Skis
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the powers the exercise of which is monitored by his Department which are currently available to local authorities and others to control nuisances caused by operators of waterborne jet ski machines.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities can make byelaws under section 76 of the Public Health Act 1961 requiring engines of all seaside pleasure boats, including water ski vessels and ski-mobiles, to be fitted with silencers. Local authorities can also serve an abatement notice on a person responsible for a statutory nuisance, including noise, under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. An individual aggrieved by noise can apply direct to a magistrates court to make an abatement order where a statutory nuisance occurs or is likely to recur, under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Department keeps no statistics about the control of nuisance caused by operators of waterborne jet ski machines.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those Acts passed by Parliament since 1979 concerning(a) local government finance and (b) local authority duties, powers and responsibilities for authorities in England.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend the then Minister for Local Government and the Inner Cities gave a list on 4 May 1990 of 124 public general Acts of Parliament, passed between June 1970 and November 1989, which affected
  55
  local authorities in England, distinguishing those which concern, at least in part, local government finance, Official Report, Vol. 171, column 676. Since November 1989, public general Acts which affect local government in England include:

  Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990

  Broadcasting Act 1990

  Education (Student Loans) Act 1990

  Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Act 1990

  Environmental Protection Act 1990

  Food Safety Act 1990

  National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990

  Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1990

  Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 19901

  Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 19901

  Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 19901

  Representation of the People Act 1990

  Rights of Way Act 1990

  Town and Country Planning Act 19901

  Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Act 19912

  Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 19912

  Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Act 19912

  1 Consolidation Act.

  2 Concerns local government finance.

  Not all these Acts resulted from Government Bills.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will allow local authorities to spend all their capital receipts.

  Mr. Key
  Local authorities are able to spend the usable part of their capital receipts on new capital expenditure or on the repayment of their debt. They also retain use of the reserved part of their receipts to repay debt or to finance capital expenditure covered by a credit approval; meanwhile, the funds may be invested in approved investments.

  Reductions for couples under 1991–92 Community Charge Reduction Scheme

  Set Charge (taking account of £140 reduction)

  Reductions from the set charges payable by a couple

  (a)

  (b)

  £

  £

  £

  Charnwood Borough

  257

  85

  210

  Melton Borough

  250

  95

  212

  Rutland District

  254

  52

  187

  Vacant Land
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he has established the level of vacant land areas within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department has commissioned a national sample survey of the stock of vacant land in urban areas in England. Final estimates from the survey are not yet available. The broad figure of up to 150,000 acres of vacant land given in the consultation paper, "Encouraging the use of vacant public sector land", relates to urban areas in England alone and was based on preliminary work carried out in preparation for the national survey.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact the disposal of vacant land areas will have on the green belt.
  56
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of Government grant per head of the population for 1990–91 and 1991–92 in the London boroughs of(a) Haringey, (b) Barnet and (c) Enfield.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is as follows:

  Government grants in 1990–91, consisting of revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge benefit grant and transitional relief grant, per head of relevant population are £762 in Haringey, £366 in Barnet and £475 in Enfield.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, following the fixing of the community charge in all Leicestershire district councils, he will now update the two answers given by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on 4 March,Official Report, columns 47–48.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 26 March 1991]: Following the statement on 19 March 1991 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Official Report, vol. 188, column 180–81, £140 will be cut from the current headline community charges for 1991–92. The calculation of community charge reductions and benefits will be made after this general reduction. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities announced on 25 March that under the community charge reduction scheme the threshold amount which charge payers are expected to meet from their own resources will be lowered from £104 to £52. The revised figures in the table show the reductions payable to couples in Charnwood, Melton and Rutland who, on 31 March 1991, are living in properties of (a) three quarters average rateable value and (b) half average rateable value for the area.

  Mr. Yeo
  There is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the green belts. The Government's policy for them is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2. Development of suitable vacant land within urban areas can help to reduce the pressure for development of green field sites.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he intends to take to ensure full public consultation takes place when land areas, currently of recreational value to local people, are indentified as unused or underused and available for disposal;

  (2) what is his policy on retaining open spaces in urban areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Land used as public open space or for recreation is not at present entered on registers and is therefore not subject to my right hon. Friend's power to
  57
  direct disposal. My Department's consultation paper, "Encouraging the use of vacant public sector land", noted that we envisage further public consultation on the criteria for entry on registers under any new statutory arrangement covering all public sector owners.

  The issue of retaining open spaces in urban areas has been addressed in my Department's draft planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation which was issued for public consultation in October last year. In the light of the many responses received, my right hon. Friend will be considering carefully what advice should be included in the final guidance.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to enter into a partnership with local government in order to develop vacant land areas in both the public and private sector, for the benefit of and in full consultation with local people.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government have already taken various steps to encourage the bringing into use of vacant land, for example, through grant arrangements which apply to land in public or private ownership and through land registers which record public sector land. I am considering what further action is necessary.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what safeguards he is considering in order to avoid vacant land areas being disposed of at a time when land prices are very low.

  Mr. Yeo
  The timing of disposal is normally a matter for the owner. A public sector owner should get a proper price for his land and my right hon. Friend would for that reason be hesitant about directing disposal when the general level of the market was depressed in the short term.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how a system of incentives for franchisees of vacant land areas will be financed; and what level of incentives budget is envisaged in the first year of operation;

  (2) how defined areas of vacant public land will be established; and how large such areas are expected to be;

  (3) what progress has been made with the selection of two experimental areas for the proposals outlined in the consultation paper "Encouraging the use of vacant public sector land"; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) how he intends to define the terms "underused" and "unused" when identifying vacant land areas;

  (5) how vacant land areas, which ought to be on new underused/unused land registers, will be identified.

  Sites which have been the subject of directions under section 98 of the Local Government Planning & Land Act 1980

  Site address

  Owner at time of direction

  1984

  Barmpton Lane West, Darlington

  Darlington BC

  Barton Lane, Clifton, Nottingham

  Nottingham City Council

  Doxford Park Way, Sunderland

  Sunderland MBC

  Oozewood Road, Royton

  Oldham MBC

  1985

  Alfred Street/Oak Bank, Harpurhey

  Manchester City Council

  Boothroyden "A" site, Blackley

  Manchester City Council

  Maple Road West, Brooklands

  Manchester City Council

  Old Market Street/Grant Street, Blackley

  Manchester City Council

  Old Market Street/Lion Street/Lawson Street/Dommett Street, Blackley

  Manchester City Council

  South Street/Parkhouse Street, Openshaw

  Manchester City Council

  Colton Common, Colton, Leeds

  Leeds City Council

  Denison Street/Silver Lane, Yeadon

  Leeds City Council

  58
  Mr. Yeo
  We are considering in the light of responses to the consultation paper what further action might be taken to encourage the bringing into use of vacant sector land. Our conclusions will be announced in due course. Meanwhile no decisions have been taken on whether to proceed with the proposals for experimental franchises or for giving all public sector owners a statutory obligation to maintain and publicise registers. The consultation paper noted that the criteria for entry on such registers and for eligibility for directions to dispose would be the subject of further consultation.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce proposals to identify and dispose of vacant land areas in the ownership of central Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on 19 February,Official Report, columns 114–15. Individual Departments have been asked to maintain and publicise registers of their vacant land holdings and proposals to make this a statutory obligation were included in the Department's consultation paper.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce proposals to identify and dispose of vacant land areas in private sector ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  In the light of responses made to the Department's consultation paper our review will include the question of whether any measures are appropriate to encourage the bringing into use of vacant land in private sector ownership or whether, as implied in the consultation paper, its subjection to the normal incentives and disciplines of the market is sufficient.

  Public Sector Land
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the occasions when existing powers have been exercised to direct disposal of public sector land.

  Mr. Yeo
  The following list shows the sites in respect of which directions under section 98 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 have been issued together with the owners concerned:
  59

  Site address

  Owner at time of direction

  Freely Lane, Bramham

  Leeds City Council

  Keswick Lane, Bardsey

  Leeds City Council

  Kirkfield Lane, Thorner

  Leeds City Council

  Lyndon Road, Bramham

  Leeds City Council

  Old Farm Close, Leeds

  Leeds City Council

  Primrose Lane, Boston Spa

  Leeds City Council

  Richmond Road/Dawsons Corner, Pudsey

  Leeds City Council

  Whiteley Croft, Otley

  Leeds City Council

  Willow Avenue, Clifford

  Leeds City Council

  261–281 Regents Park Road, N3

  Barnet LBC

  Roewood Lane, Macclesfield

  Macclesfield BC

  Stocks Park Drive, Horwich

  Bolton MBC

  The Grange, Southgate Circus

  Enfield LBC

  1986

  Eltham Road, Greenwich

  Greenwich LBC

  Hornpark Close/Eltham Road, Greenwich

  Greenwich LBC

  Ling Close, Coltishall

  Broadland BC

  London Road, SE1

  Southwark LBC

  South Park Drive, Blackpool

  Blackpool BC

  Hall Farm Road, Doxford Park, Sunderland

  Sunderland MBC

  The Hollins, off Plodder Lane

  Bolton MBC

  Bamfield/Briery Leaze Road, Cheltenham

  Bristol City Council

  Fiddlers Green Lane, Cheltenham

  Cheltenham BC

  Russells Hall, Dudley (H7)

  Dudley MBC

  Russells Hall, Dudley (H8)

  Dudley MBC

  Duddon Close, Ireleth

  Barrow-in-Furness BC

  Hardy Avenue, Brierfield

  Pendle BC

  Houghton Lane, Houghton (South Ribble BC)

  Lancashire CC

  1987

  Surbiton Lagoon, Surbiton

  Kingston-upon-Thames LBC

  Netherleigh, off Biggar Bank Road, Walney Island

  Barrow-in-Furness BC

  Beck Lane/Lanark Walk, Upton Priory, Macclesfield, (Macclesfield BC)

  Cheshire CC

  Congleton Road, Macclesfield

  Macclesfield BC

  Land at County Road North, Hull (Ref. 23)

  Kingston-upon-Hull CC

  Land at County Road North, Hull (Ref. 24)

  Kingston-upon-Hull CC

  Land at County Road North, Hull (Ref. 25)

  Kingston-upon-Hull CC

  Land at Spring Street, Hull

  Kingston-upon-Hull CC

  Longcroft/Benomley Road, Huddersfield

  Kirklees MBC

  Royd House, Reinwood Road, Huddersfield

  Kirklees MBC

  Goodison Boulevard, Cantley (Ref. 15)

  Doncaster MBC

  Broadway, Dunscroft, Doncaster

  Doncaster MBC

  Crescent East/Flanderwell Lane, Sunnyside, Rotherham

  Rotherham MBC

  Thompson Hill, High Green, Sheffield

  Sheffield MBC

  Land at Pigeon Cote Farm, Ryedale

  York City Council

  Land at the rear of Bur Dike Avenue, York

  York City Council

  Land fronting Cheam Road and Robin Hood Lane, Sutton

  Sutton LBC

  Land fronting Camden Road and Robin Hood Lane, Sutton

  Sutton LBC

  Galleywall Road/Anchor Street/Lynton Road, SE16

  Southwark LBC

  Thames Road North Allotment Site, Barking

  Barking and Dagenham LBC

  Land between Nos. 2 and 4 Meadow Way, Offley

  North Hertfordshire DC

  Pleckgate Road Blackburn

  Blackburn BC

  Land adjacent to Loughborough Technical College, Loughborough (Charnwood BC)

  Leicestershire CC

  Land to the south of Hillingdon Road, Lanehead, Burnley

  Burnley BC

  Land east of Portland Street, Mansfield Woodhouse

  Mansfield DC

  1988

  Staveley Road School, Chiswick

  Hounslow LBC

  Vauxhall Walk/Randall Road, London SE11

  Lambeth LBC

  Land fronting Longshaw Street, Opposite Longport Flats, Longport, Stoke-on-Trent

  Stoke-on-Trent DC

  Dere Park, Brandon

  Durham City Council

  Castle Road, Unsworth, Bury

  Manchester City Council

  Land North of Wythenshawe Road, Manchester

  Manchester City Council

  Douglas Street, Atherton

  Wigan MBC

  Land east of Leeds Road, Methley

  Leeds City Council

  Land bounded by Dewberry Street/St Leonard's Road & Brunswick Road, E14

  Tower Hamlets LBC

  Land between 102 and 108 Gordon Avenue, Stanmore, Middlesex

  Harrow LBC

  Site 2, Marton Grove South, Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough BC

  Land to the rear of Burleigh College, Loughborough (Charnwood BC)

  Leicestershire CC

  Greenhill Lane, Riddings (Amber Valley BC)

  Derbyshire CC

  1989

  South Street/Nantwich Road, Crewe

  Crewe & Nantwich BC

  Land at Water Lane, Droylesden, Manchester

  Tameside MBC

  Alexandra Avenue, Meol Brace, Shrewsbury

  Shropshire CC

  Helston Drive, Strelley Estate, Nottingham

  Nottinghamshire CC

  60

  61

  Site address

  Owner at time of direction

  1990

  Quarry Road, Ryde, Isle of Wight

  Medina Borough Council

  Longden Road, Shrewsbury

  Shropshire CC

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has available concerning the impact of proposals for the disposal of public sector land on land areas identified by local authorities for future housing purposes.

  Mr. Yeo
  The use of any land which my right hon. Friend decided to make the subject of a direction to dispose would be decided through the planning system in the normal way. Where a direction to dispose is proposed the landowner has the right to make representations about its actual or intended use. My right hon. Friend takes these into account when deciding whether to make the direction.

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to make the 1985 European Community directive on environmental assess-ment applicable to development proposals for which consent is sought by means of private parliamentary Bills.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs.

  Project rejections in 1991–92 Urban Programmes for selected local authorities

  Local authority

  Number of projects rejected

  Cash value of projects rejected (£k)

  Ethnic minority projects rejected

  Per cent, of all projects rejected

  Disability projects rejected

  Per cent. of all projects rejected

  Economic projects rejected

  Per cent, of all projects rejected

  Environ-mental projects rejected

  Per cent. of all projects rejected

  Barnsley

  8

  381

  0

  0

  1

  13

  2

  25

  1

  13

  Blackburn

  4

  18

  0

  0

  1

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton

  9

  639

  0

  0

  1

  11

  2

  22

  1

  11

  Bradford

  30

  2,808

  3

  10

  2

  7

  6

  20

  3

  10

  Bristol

  8

  193

  1

  13

  1

  13

  3

  38

  0

  0

  Information for the Brent 1991–92 urban programme is not currently available.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make his decision on the future of the City of London airport in the light of his inspector's report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  When I have received and considered the inspector's report.

  Housing, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been improved in Liverpool with the aid of Government grants, over each of the past 11 years; how many new homes have been built by the local authority and by housing associations in each of the past 11 years; and how many homes in the public and private sector are currently vacant in Liverpool.

  Mr. Yeo
  The numbers of grants paid to private owners and tenants and the numbers of housing association and local authority dwellings improved with the aid of grant or subsidy reported quarterly by Liverpool city council are published in "Local Housing Statistics".

  The numbers of new homes built, based on monthly returns, appear in the publication "Housebuilding in
  62
  Gorman) on 26 February, column 422. As the consultation paper issued by my Department and the Welsh Office on that date stated, it is proposed that the amendments to procedures to require environmental assessment, where appropriate, for private Bills for the construction of works should apply to Bills deposited in and after the 1991–92 Session. A proposed amendment to Standing Orders was tabled on 6 March.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will break down the number of projects not approved for the 1991–92 financial year(a) numerically and (b) by cash value for the urban programme in (i) Barnsley, (ii) Blackburn, (iii) Bolton, (iv) Bradford, (v) Brent and (vi) Bristol; and if he will indicate the percentage of projects not approved for the financial year 1991–92 relating to (1) ethnic minority projects, (2) projects relating to disability, (3) economic developments and (4) the environment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is provided in the table.

  England by Local Authority Areas 1980 to 1989" (tables 1.1 to 1.10). Figures for the first nine months of 1990 are in "Local Housing Statistics" (issue 96, table 1).

  The tables indicate where the information is incomplete because all returns for the year have not been received.

  The latest available information on vacant dwellings relates to 1 April 1990 and was provided by Liverpool city council in its April 1990 housing investment programme return (HIP1).

  Copies of all these documents are in the Library.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against the uniform business rate have been lodged in the areas covering the parliamentary constituencies of(a) Hornsey and Wood Green and (b) Tottenham.

  Mr. Key
  By 5 April 1991, the valuation office had received 1,368 proposals to alter the 1990 rating list in respect of the parliamentary constituency area of Hornsey and Wood Green and 1,062 in respect of that for Tottenham.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the staffing of
  63
  the North Yorkshire valuation and community charge tribunal, in order that appeals concerning the uniform business rate may be heard within six months of their submission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Ratepayers had six months from 1 April 1990 in which to make proposals to alter their 1990 rating assessments and valuation officers then had a further six months to settle the proposal before the matter became an appeal. Most proposals have only recently become appeals to the tribunals. The North Yorkshire valuation and community charge tribunal has 9,800 appeals outstanding. Staffing and other administrative arrangements of tribunals have been improved to enable the caseload to be dealt with, and staffing levels are being further reviewed. Tribunals will generally give priority to hardship cases and to the more significant appeals, with a view to establishing quickly benchmarks which should allow settlements pag p 31between valuation officers and ratepayers without the need in all cases for a tribunal hearing. Complex cases may take longer and it would not necessarily be in the ratepayers' best interests for these to be rushed.

  Public Buildings (Safety)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will change the standards relating to the physical structures of public buildings to make them safer in the event of attacks by terrorists.

  Mr. Yeo
  Various measures are being taken to improve the safety of public buildings in view of recent terrorist attacks. It would not be appropriate to give details of these measures.

  Prestwich Hospital
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to come to a decision on the planning applications from Salford health authority relating to part of the Prestwich hospital, Salford site.

  Mr. Yeo
  The appeal will be determined as quickly as possible after the inspector has reported on the public inquiry to be held on 26 September.

  Local Authority Swap Contracts
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to deal with the problem arising from local authority swap contracts.

  Mr. Key
  The Government are considering the implications of the House of Lords judgment on this complex matter and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Heliports (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received the inspector's report on the City of London heliport planning application; and what the inspector recommends.

  Mr. Yeo
  The inspector's report has not yet been received.

  Lambeth (Housing)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of bids for housing association development in Lambeth for 1991–92; and what bids will be met for new housing and rehabilitation of existing housing.

  Mr. Yeo
  This is a matter for the Housing Corporation. I have therefore asked the corporation to respond to the hon. Member direct.

  Bees
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to prevent damage to domestic bees as a consequence of the importation of the varroa mite.

  Mr. Curry
  Our aim is to keep this country free from varroasis. The Importation of Bees Order 1980 prohibits imports of honey bees except under licence from countries of high bee health status which are free from varroasis.

  Parking Offences
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many parking tickets were received and paid by his Department in each year since 1988 in respect of official vehicles.

  Mr. Hesseltine
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: The numbers of parking tickets received and paid by the Department of the Environment in respect of the Government car service, the interdepartmental despatch service and DOE (Central) Vehicles, for each of the years requested, are:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990

  181

  133

  68

  1 To date.

  These numbers exclude PSA and TCS vehicles for which records are not held centrally and where the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tameside
  Mr Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to increase infrastructure investment in Tameside.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: Responsibility for monitoring and developing infrastruc-ture in Tameside lies primarily with the borough council. My Department has this year awarded Tameside rolling programme status for derelict land reclamation grant together with supplementary credit approvals for environmental and other regenerative schemes in the Hyde renewal area.

  Tameside is also eligible for grant aid from the European regional development fund under phase II of the Mersey basin programme, which is administered by the Government for the EC in partnership with local authorities and other eligible bodies. Tameside have submitted 25 grant applications for a range of infrastructure projects; and so far the first three of these have been approved, to a total of £110,657 grant aid. Others are expected to follow.

  Grimsargh Hall Farm
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of the proposed development by J. Turner and Son at Grimsargh Hall farm, Preston; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 8 March 1991]: Two letters of objection were received by my right hon. Friend and Preston borough council copied to him a further 11 and one in support.

  My right hon. Friend considered that the issues raised did not justify calling in the application and he has authorised the council to determine it as it thinks fit.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had relating to its assessments of the ecological resources of the Gulf states from the world conservation monitoring centre in Cambridge.

  Mr. Baldry
  In addition to the hon. Member's question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 22 March,Official Report, Volume 188, column 246, I have also received a letter from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre which draws attention to the work carried out by the centre on the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what protection has been given to sea grasses in the Gulf.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 22 March 1991,Official Report, Vol. 188, column 245.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 245, in what ways he has made the work of the Plymouth marine laboratory of NERC known to the Gulf states.

  Mr. Baldry
  The report on the likely biological effects of the Gulf oil slick carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council was sent to relevant agencies in Saudi Arabia via the British embassy in Riyadh in early February, and to British embassies in other Gulf states.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the information learned from the work of the Meteorological Office research aircraft in the Gulf;

  (2) what information he has had from members of the Meteorological Office, in relation to sulphur dioxide and other deleterious substances, as a result of their research flight over Kuwait; and what further monitoring action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am arranging to place in the Library copies of an assessment by Departments concerned of the potential impact of the burning oil wells in Kuwait on the environment and human health; and of a report by the Meteorological Office on the recent activities of the meteorological research flight in the region. Following analysis of the data gathered by the aircraft, the Meteorological Office will publish a preliminary report of the findings in a few weeks' time. No further monitoring action is currently planned.
  66
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what satellite images of the effect of the pollution over Kuwait have been made available by other countries to his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  Meteorological satellite images provide information on the location and extent of the smoke plume in the Gulf rather than on its effects. Images from European meteorological satellites are available to all nations through normal receiving channels.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department is providing to the Kuwait Government to help them to cope with the effect of summer ventilation systems in Kuwait inhaling air with abnormal sulphur dioxide and nitrogen content.

  Mr. Baldry
  None at present. My Department continues to be in contact with the Gulf states about whether there is further scope for the application of United Kingdom expertise in the evaluation of the environmental effects of the war and possible remedial action.

  Estuaries (Effluent)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a study of the effluent from waste production and waste disposal in relation to the ecosystems of estuaries.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is already normal practice to set discharge consents for effluents to rivers and estuaries on the basis of quality objectives set for downstream waters. The quality objectives used for estuaries are to maintain the ecosystems if the quality is high, and to restore the quality if it is not. With the introduction of integrated pollution control discharges from prescribed processes will also be required to apply best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to prevent pollution.

  Hazardous Waste (US Bases)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place between the Government and United States Government about disposal of hazardous waste from United States bases in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world; and what was the outcome of the discussions.

  Mr. Baldry
  Discussions have been held since November 1989 with the United States Government about the importation into the United Kingdom of hazardous waste from United States bases overseas. Pending the outcome of these discussions imports of hazardous waste into United States bases have been suspended. The United States Government have now agreed that their forces will not in the future import hazardous waste directly into their bases in the United Kingdom. Discussions are continuing with the United States Government with a view to stopping the importation of all waste.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the total number of persons engaged in(a) agriculture, (b) steel industry, (c) coal

  67
  mining, (d) the car industry, (e) the electrical goods industry, (f) local government and (g) the national health service in 1979, 1989 and 1990, showing the percentage increase or decrease in each case.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department's estimates of employment are categorised according to the 1980 standard

  Employees in Employment—Great Britain

  Thousands (Unadjusted for seasonal variation)

  Percentage change

  Industries (SIC 80)

  June 1979

  June 1989

  June 1990

  1979–89

  1979–90

  1989–90

  Agriculture and horticulture (Class 01)

  339

  263

  260

  -23

  -23

  -1

  Iron and steel industry (Group 221)1

  191

  45

  53

  -76

  -72

  16

  Coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels (Group 111)

  299

  103

  91

  -66

  -70

  -12

  Manufacture of motor vehicles and parts (Class 35)

  464

  262

  245

  -44

  -47

  -6

  Electrical and electronic engineering (Class 34)

  752

  553

  556

  -26

  -26

  1

  Local government service not elsewhere specified (Activity 9112)

  662

  539

  557

  -18

  -16

  3

  Medical and other health services (Group 951, 952, 953 and 954)

  1,170

  1,377

  1,380

  18

  18

  0

  'These estimates are based on small samples and are unreliable.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the unemployment rate in each European Community country.

  Mr. Jackson
  Following is a table which gives the latest available internationally comparable unemployment rates for the 12 member states of the European Community.

  Comparisons of Unemployment between EC countries

  Standardised unemployment rates1 seasonally adjusted

  Per cent rate

  Latest month

  Spain

  15·8

  November

  Ireland

  14·7

  February

  Italy

  9·8

  October

  France

  9·1

  January

  Belgium

  8·4

  February

  United Kingdom

  8·1

  February

  Denmark

  1(7·9)

  February

  Greece

  2(7·4)

  April 1987

  Netherlands

  7·3

  December

  Portugal

  4·5

  November

  Luxembourg

  3(1·6)

  February

  1 Note for those EC countries for which no OECD standardised rates are available, similar harmonised rates compiled by the Statistical Office of European Communities (EUROSTAT) are shown in brackets.

  2 Recent comparable figures are currently not available for Greece the latest relating to April 1987.

  3 There are no reliable figures available as yet for a unified Germany, the rate for the former West Germany is 4·5 per cent, for January.

  Source: OECD "Main Economic Indicators", Labour Attache reports and Eurostat "Unemployment" Bulletins.

  Employment Offices (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what employment offices he plans to close in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.
  68
  industrial classification (SIC80). This classification does not specifically identify the national health service, which is included along with other employers in medical and other health services (SIC 80 groups 951, 952, 953 and 954). The available information is given in the table.

  Factory Inspection
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South of 26 March,Official Report, column 752–53, if he will list the pilot projects and the areas they are established within, to identify unregistered premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Between 1 July and 31 December the Health and Safety Executive plans to carry out a pilot exercise to assess the feasibility of employing visiting officers to identify establishments for inspection. The exercise will take place in the following HSE areas:

  Marches

  South West

  East Anglia

  London North

  Greater Manchester

  West & North Yorkshire

  Scotland West

  One of the objectives of the exercise is to seek out and identify establishments not registered with HSE. The exercise is in addition to and complements normal inspection arrangements to seek out and inspect unregistered premises.

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the current members of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and give the relevant experience of each member; how many of the council are female; and what percentage of the total membership they comprise.

  Mr. Jackson
  A list of the 13 current members of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and their experience is given below.

  CHAIRMAN

  Sir Bryan Nicholson: Chairman of the Post Office; the Council for National Academic Awards; the Industrial Society; the CBI Task Force on Vocatonal Education and Training. Formerly Chairman of Rank Xerox and of the Manpower Services Commission.

  MEMBERS

  Gerald Brinsdon: Chairman of the West Midlands Engineering Careers Co-ordinating Organisation, an

  69
  adviser to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities Education Committee and a member of the Engineering Careers Information Service steering committee. Until recently Chief Education Officer for Sandwell.

  Ken Graham CBE: Formerly Deputy General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, 1985–87. He has been a member of the board of Remploy Ltd. since 1987 and was formerly a Commissioner of the MSC 1974–87.

  Peter Reay CBE: Has held a wide range of personnel and management positions within Cadbury Schweppes PLC becoming Group Personnel Director in 1981 from which he retired recently.

  Ron Shepherd: OBE Recently retired as Manager, Education Training and Personnel Services at the Ford Motor Company.

  Barry Barker MBE: Recently retired as Secretary and Chief Executive, Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (formerly Chartered Institute of Secretaries) following a career in industry and management.

  Dr. John Capey: Worked in industry as a production manager before moving into education. Has a Doctorate in education. Is currently Principal of Exeter College. He is a mentor of the Business Technician Education Council and of the CPVE Joint Board.

  Hywel Davies: Personnel Manager of South Wales Electricity Board.

  Barney Gibbens OBE: Co-founder of Computer Analysts Programmes Ltd (the CAP Group) in May 1962. This company merged in July 1988 with a large French systems house and changed its name to SEMA Group Plc—of which company he is Chairman.

  Gill Lewis: Has a degree in Chemistry from Oxford. She is

  Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence Percentage with weekly earnings less than £180 (ex overtime)

  Manual

  Women Non-manual

  All

  Manual

  Men Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  89·7

  55·1

  62·9

  50·1

  16·3

  34·3

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  84·1

  62·3

  ..

  ..

  Central

  96·8

  65·5

  74·9

  41·9

  13·3

  29·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  72·9

  48·2

  ..

  40·0

  Fife

  89·9

  57·4

  67·7

  46·9

  19·3

  35·1

  Grampian

  ..

  52·4

  60·8

  49·3

  7·9

  30·8

  Highland

  ..

  64·5

  69·6

  54·2

  ..

  39·2

  Lothian

  86·0

  52·8

  58·1

  54·7

  18·0

  34·7

  Strathclyde

  86·5

  53·4

  60·8

  47·3

  16·4

  32·9

  Tayside

  95·8

  57·8

  67·8

  62·3

  19·8

  43·2

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  35·1

  Highland and islands

  ..

  58·5

  65·0

  53·4

  16·5

  38·2

  Great Britain

  85·2

  46·3

  54·4

  43·5

  13·5

  28·6

  Source: NES 1990.

  NB ".." denotes sampling errors too large or numbers to small for reliable information.

  Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence Percentage with weekly earnings less than £170 (ex overtime) April 1990

  Manual

  Women Non-manual

  All

  Manual

  Men Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  84·7

  49·1

  57·2

  42·0

  13·8

  28·9

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  80·5

  54·1

  ..

  ..

  Central

  88·9

  59·5

  68·2

  32·7

  10·2

  23·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  65·6

  42·6

  ..

  35·2

  Fife

  87·3

  54·4

  64·9

  40·2

  16·0

  29·9

  Grampian

  ..

  46·9

  55·3

  41·9

  6·6

  26·2

  Highland

  ..

  60·3

  66·2

  47·9

  ..

  34·7

  Lothian

  81·4

  45·2

  50·9

  45·6

  15·4

  29·1

  Strathclyde

  81·2

  47·5

  55·1

  39·1

  14·3

  27·5

  Tayside

  89·5

  52·2

  62·0

  53·2

  16·2

  36·6

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  31·2

  Highland and islands

  ..

  55·1

  62·3

  47·1

  15·0

  33·9

  Great Britain

  80·7

  40·8

  49·1

  36·4

  11·1

  23·8

  Source:

  NES 1990.

  NB ".." denotes sampling errors too large or numbers too small for reliable information.
  70
  a "former business woman of the year" and is currently the Director of Human Resources at Courtaulds plc.

  John Spence OBE: Chairman of the Northern Ireland Training Authority 1984–89. Chairman of the Training and Employment Agency for Northern Ireland since 1989. Chairman of Richardsons Fertilisers Ltd.

  John Barnes: Lecturer in Political Science at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He has been Chairman of the Kent Education Committee, and is currently a member of the Council for National Academic Awards.

  George Wycherley: Director and General Manager of Motherwell Bridge Fabricators Ltd. He was Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission's Area Manpower Board for Lanarkshire.

  There is currently one vacancy on the council. Of the 13 current members one is female, representing 7·7 per cent. of the total membership.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show for full-time workers the percentage earning less than £170 and £180, giving the information for (a) women and (b) men for (1) manual, (2) non-manual and (3) all workers, excluding overtime pay for (i) Scotland, (ii) the regions of Scotland and (iii) Great Britain.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available from the new earnings survey is given in the following tables.
  71
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide details of the number of male employees in part-time employment for(a) Scotland and (b) Great Britain; and if he will provide a regional breakdown for each.

  Mr. Jackson
  There were an estimated 953,600 male employees in part-time employment in Great Britain in September 1990, the latest date for which information is available. Estimates for the regions are available only from the census of employment. The latest available are for September 1989 and are given in the table.

  Male employees in part-time employment: September 1989

  Great Britain and regions

  Numbers (000s)

  Great Britain

  920·8

  South East

  342·9

  East Anglia

  33·8

  South West

  85·2

  West Midlands

  78·6

  East Midlands

  64·2

  Yorks & Humberside

  72·3

  North West

  90·6

  North

  40·0

  Wales

  37·2

  Scotland

  76·1

  Part-time females on adult rates

  Average Gross Weekly Earnings (£)

  Average Weekly Hours

  Average Gross Hourly Earnings (pence)

  Manual

  Non-man

  All

  Manual

  Total Non-man

  All

  Manual

  Overtime Non-man

  All

  Manual

  Non-man

  All

  Scotland

  59·1

  94·8

  79·0

  19·2

  20·4

  19·9

  0·6

  0·8

  0·7

  308·2

  462·6

  396·3

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Central

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  291·0

  ..

  ..

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Fife

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  290·9

  ..

  ..

  Grampian

  54·1

  ..

  77·9

  18·3

  ..

  18·8

  1·2

  ..

  1·1

  301·3

  451·9

  386·2

  Highland

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Lothian

  56·4

  96·6

  79·8

  18·2

  20·7

  19·7

  0·6

  0·9

  0·8

  312·4

  467·2

  406·2

  Strathclyde

  62·1

  94·2

  80·1

  20·3

  20·4

  20·4

  0·7

  0·6

  0·6

  312·3

  466·1

  397·2

  Tayside

  ..

  ..

  76·7

  ..

  ..

  19·5

  ..

  ..

  0·5

  311·2

  ..

  399·1

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Highland and islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  292·2

  ..

  ..

  Great Britain

  58·9

  89·2

  76·3

  18·5

  20·1

  19·4

  0·8

  0·9

  0·8

  321·4

  446·6

  395·1

  Notes:

  1. ".." denotes sampling error too large or numbers too small for reliable estimates.

  2. The Survey excludes significant numbers of part-time employees with low weekly earnings.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide in a table the percentage of women in part-time employment who earn less than £2 per hour, less than £3 per hour, £3·40 per hour, £3·50 per hour, £4·50 per hour and £5 per hour for the categories(a) manual employment, (b) non-manual employment and (c) all women in (i) Scotland, (ii) the regions of Scotland and (iii) Great Britain as a whole.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available from the new earnings survey is given in the following tables.

  Part-lime females on adult rates percentage with hourly earnings less than £2·00

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  3·9

  1·5

  2·6

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Central

  5·0

  ..

  ..

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Fife

  2·0

  ..

  ..

  Grampian

  4·2

  0·9

  2·4

  Highland

  ..

  ..

  ..

  72

  Great Britain and regions

  Numbers (000s)

  Regions of Scotland

  Borders

  1·6

  Central

  3·5

  Dumfries & Galloway

  1·8

  Fife

  3·8

  Grampian

  9·4

  Highland

  3·8

  Lothian

  11·1

  Strathclyde

  33·2

  Tayside

  6·6

  Orkney

  0·5

  Shetland

  0·5

  Western Isles

  0·4

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show for part-time women workers(a) average gross weekly earnings, (b) average weekly hours, total and overtime and (c) average gross hourly earnings for (i) manual, (ii) non-manual and (iii) all part-time women workers in (1) Great Britain, (2) Scotland and (3) the regions of Scotland.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available from the new earnings survey is given in the following table.

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Lothian

  3·4

  1·5

  2·3

  Strathclyde

  4·2

  1·6

  2·7

  Tayside

  5·3

  ..

  3·6

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Highlands and Islands

  2·5

  ..

  ..

  Great Britain

  2·6

  1·7

  2·1

  Part-time females on adult rates percentage with hourly earnings less than £3·00

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  52·4

  25·8

  37·8

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Central

  0·80

  ..

  ..

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Fife

  71·4

  ..

  ..

  Grampian

  57·9

  29·9

  42·5

  Highland

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Lothian

  50·3

  21·1

  33·5

  Strathclyde

  46·7

  25·6

  35·1

  73

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Tayside

  0·48

  ..

  36·5

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Highlands and Islands

  0·60

  ..

  ..

  Great Britain

  52·1

  23·5

  35·

  Note: ".." denotes sampling error too large or numbers too small for reliable estimates.

  Part-time females on adult rates. Percentage with hourly earnings less than £3·40

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  75·1

  36·8

  53·8

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Central

  87·5

  ..

  ..

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Fife

  85·7

  ..

  ..

  Grampian

  70·5

  39·3

  53·3

  Highland

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Lothian

  78·2

  34·2

  52·9

  Strathclyde

  70·6

  33·3

  50·1

  Tayside

  84·0

  ..

  58·1

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Highland and Islands

  77·5

  ..

  ..

  Great Britain

  71·8

  37·2

  52·2

  Part-time females on adult rates. Percentage with hourly earnings less than £3·60

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  83·5

  43·2

  61·1

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Central

  87·5

  ..

  ..

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Fife

  89·8

  ..

  ..

  Grampian

  86·3

  41·9

  61·8

  Highland

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Lothian

  83·7

  41·7

  59·5

  Strathclyde

  81·1

  41·7

  59·4

  Tayside

  90·7

  ..

  63·5

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Highland and Islands

  82·5

  ..

  ..

  Great Britain

  79·2

  43·8

  59·1

  Note: ".." denotes sampling error too large or numbers too small for reliable estimates.

  Full time employees on adult rates: percentage with weekly earnings including overtime less than £120

  Manual

  Women Non-manual

  All

  Manual

  Men Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  39·2

  14·7

  20·3

  5·6

  3·1

  4·4

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  48·8

  6·6

  ..

  ..

  Central

  41·3

  16·2

  23·7

  3·2

  2·4

  2·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  31·2

  5·7

  ..

  5·2

  Fife

  40·5

  16·0

  23·8

  5·4

  5·0

  5·2

  Grampian

  ..

  15·4

  23·2

  4·6

  1·7

  3·3

  Highland

  ..

  18·2

  27·0

  5·6

  ..

  4·5

  Lothian

  34·9

  9·5

  13·5

  5·1

  3·1

  4·0

  Strathclyde

  34·3

  14·7

  19·1

  5·9

  2·8

  4·4

  Tayside

  36·8

  17·2

  22·3

  9·0

  4·7

  7·1

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  5·2

  Highland and islands

  ..

  17·0

  24·6

  5·3

  3·8

  4·7

  Great Britain

  33·0

  10·3

  15·0

  4·6

  2·1

  3·4

  NB ".." denotes sampling error too large or numbers too small for reliable estimate.

  Full time employees on adult rates: percentage with weekly earnings including overtime less than £130

  Manual

  Women Non-manual

  All

  Manual

  MenNon-manual

  All

  Scotland

  47·2

  20·3

  26·4

  8·6

  4·3

  6·6

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  57·3

  13·1

  ..

  ..

  Central

  49·2

  24·3

  31·8

  6·5

  3·0

  5·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  39·6

  7·8

  ..

  8·6

  74

  Part-time females on adult rates. Percentage with hourly earnings less than £4·50

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  95·9

  64·6

  78·5

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Central

  95·0

  ..

  ..

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Fife

  98·0

  ..

  ..

  Grampian

  96·8

  63·2

  78·3

  Highland

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Lothian

  92·5

  63·8

  76·0

  Strathclyde

  96·4

  63·5

  78·3

  Tayside

  96·0

  ..

  79·0

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Highland and Islands

  97·5

  ..

  ..

  Great Britain

  93·1

  66·3

  77·9

  Part-time females on adult rates. Percentage with hourly earnings less than £5·00

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  98·3

  70·8

  83·0

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Central

  97·5

  ..

  ..

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Fife

  98·0

  ..

  ..

  Grampian

  100·0

  68·4

  82·5

  Highland

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Lothian

  97·3

  70·4

  81·8

  Strathclyde

  98·6

  70·5

  83·1

  Tayside

  97·3

  ..

  82·6

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Highland and Islands

  100·0

  ..

  ..

  Great Britain

  96·3

  73·5

  83·3

  Note: ".." denotes sampling error too large or numbers too small for reliable estimates.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show for full-time workers the percentage earning less than £1 20 and £130 per week, giving the information for(a) women and (b) men for (1) manual, (2) non-manual and (3) all workers, including overtime pay and excluding overtime pay in (i) Scotland, (ii) the regions of Scotland and (iii) Great Britain.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available from the new earnings survey is given in following tables.
  75

  Manual

  Women Non-manual

  All

  Manual

  Men Non-manual

  All

  Fife

  48·1

  21·3

  29·8

  8·3

  5·5

  7·1

  Grampian

  ..

  21·6

  28·6

  5·6

  2·7

  4·3

  Highland

  ..

  20·7

  2·1

  10·6

  ..

  7·8

  Lothian

  43·4

  15·5

  19·9

  7·4

  4·6

  5·9

  Strathclyde

  42·3

  19·6

  24·7

  9·2

  4·1

  6·8

  Tayside

  50·5

  23·5

  30·6

  13·2

  5·1

  9·6

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  7·8

  Highland and islands

  ..

  20·4

  27·3

  10·1

  4·5

  7·8

  Great Britain

  42·9

  15·2

  21·0

  7·2

  3·1

  5·2

  NB ".." denotes sampling error too large or numbers to small for reliable estimate.

  Full time employees on adult rates: percentage with weekly earnings excluding overtime less than £120

  Manual

  Women Non-manual

  All

  Manual

  Men Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  44·9

  15·7

  22·3

  8·2

  3·7

  6·1

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  51·2

  8·2

  ..

  ..

  Central

  44·4

  17·6

  25·6

  5·1

  3·0

  4·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  32·3

  6·4

  ..

  6·2

  Fife

  43·0

  18·9

  26·6

  6·6

  7·2

  6·9

  Grampian

  ..

  16·4

  25·6

  7·0

  2·0

  4·7

  Highland

  ..

  18·2

  27·7

  6·3

  ..

  4·9

  Lothian

  42·6

  10·5

  15·6

  9·0

  3·8

  6·1

  Strathclyde

  39·6

  15·5

  20·9

  8·7

  3·4

  6·2

  Tayside

  45·3

  17·9

  25·1

  10·6

  5·1

  8·2

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  7·8

  Highland and islands

  ..

  17·0

  25·7

  6·9

  3·8

  5·6

  Great Britain

  37·1

  11·1

  16·5

  6·8

  2·5

  4·6

  Full time employees on adult rates: percentage with weekly earnings excluding overtime less than £130.

  Manual

  Women Non-manual

  All

  Manual

  Men Non-manual

  All

  Scotland

  53·6

  21·3

  28·6

  13·5

  5·4

  9·7

  Borders

  ..

  ..

  59·8

  18·0

  ..

  ..

  Central

  57·1

  25·7

  35·1

  10·1

  4·2

  7·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  ..

  ..

  40·6

  11·3

  ..

  11·4

  Fife

  50·6

  23·7

  32·3

  10·8

  7·2

  9·2

  Grampian

  ..

  22·6

  31·3

  11·9

  2·9

  7·9

  Highland

  ..

  24·0

  32·4

  15·5

  ..

  11·0

  Lothian

  51·2

  15·9

  21·5

  13·3

  5·7

  9·2

  Strathclyde

  49·0

  20·6

  27·0

  13·9

  5·1

  9·8

  Tayside

  54·7

  24·6

  32·5

  17·7

  6·7

  12·8

  Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  11·7

  Highlands and Islands

  ..

  23·1

  31·7

  15·3

  5·3

  11·2

  Great Britain

  48·5

  16·3

  23·0

  11·6

  3·7

  7·6

  N.B. ".." denotes sampling error too large or numbers too small for reliable estimates.

  Training Courses (London)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those providers of employment training courses, in the London area, who have had their funding cut in the current financial year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The contracts for employment training are negotiated between training providers and training and enterprise councils, where operational, or otherwise with area offices of the Employment Department. In either case the financial details of these contracts are commercial in confidence.

  Local Authority Staff (Strikes)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which local authorities employees have taken strike action during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 27 March 1991]: Confidentiality constraints preclude the publication of
  76
  information which directly or indirectly identifies individual employers or people involved in strike action, even when such information may already be available in the public domain, for example, from media reports.

HEALTH

  Children
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that there are no more cases of children being removed from their homes by social workers in unjustifiable circumstances.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Children Act, which will be implemented on 14 October, recasts the law on protecting children at risk to ensure that, when necessary, effective protective action can be taken within a framework of proper safeguards and reasonable opportunities for parents and others connected with the child to challenge such actions before a court.
  77
  The emergency protection order replaces the criticised place of safety order. Before granting such an order the court has to be satisfied the child is likely to suffer significant harm or cannot be seen in circumstances where the child might be suffering significant harm. The order has a maximum duration of eight days with a possible single extension of seven days. Where parents or certain other persons were not present when the emergency protection order was made they will have a right after 72 hours to apply to have the order discharged.

  The Children Act introduces a new order, the child assessment order. Its purpose is to enable an assessment of a child to be made where significant harm is suspected but the child is not thought to be at immediate risk, where the local authority or other authorised person considers an assessment is required and where the parents are unwilling to co-operate. The order is intended to allow the local authority, or authorised person, to ascertain enough about the child's health or development or the way in which he has been treated to decide what further action, if any, is required.

  These new orders will enable a balance to be struck between the rights of parents to bring up their children as they see fit and the duty of the state to intervene when necessary to safeguard the welfare of a child.

  The Act also makes important changes to the use by local authorities of wardship and the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. If a local authority wishes to apply to a court for exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction, it will first have to obtain leave of court to do so. Leave will be granted only if no statutory procedure is available under the Act which would achieve the desired result, and if there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if inherent jurisdiction is not exercised.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many speech therapists are currently employed by local health authorities;

  (2) if he will list (a) the number of speech therapists and (b) the ratio of speech therapists per 100,000 of population in the regional health authorities' planning proposals for each year from 1989 to 1994.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There were 2,810 speech therapists employed by the national health service in England at 30 September 1989. Details of the ratio of speech therapists per 100,000 of population in the regional health authorities' planning proposals for each year from 1990 to 1994 are not available centrally. The ratio as at 30 September 1989, by English region is shown in the table.

  NHS qualified speech therapists in post and ratio of speech therapists per 100,000 population by regional health authorities at 30 September 1989

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Region

  Speech therapist

  Ratio

  Northern

  180

  5·7

  Yorkshire

  180

  4·9

  Trent

  260

  5·6

  East Anglia

  110

  5·5

  North West Thames

  250

  7·2

  North East Thames

  250

  6·7

  South East Thames

  260

  7·0

  South West Thames

  180

  6·0

  Wessex

  120

  4·2

  78

  Region

  Speech therapist

  Ratio

  Oxford

  150

  5·9

  South Western

  220

  6·7

  West Midlands

  270

  5·2

  Mersey

  130

  5·5

  North Western

  220

  5·6

  England2

  2,810

  5·9

  Source: Department of Health (SMI3) Annual Census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  Notes:

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents. Unrounded figures have been used to calculate the ratios.

  2 Includes figures (30 WTE) for London Post-Graduate Special Health Authorities.

  Abortions
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of national health service abortions under 13 weeks since last menstrual period, and the corresponding number of day care operations, performed on women resident in each regional health authority, and in each district health authority, in England and Wales in the latest available year.

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

  General Practitioners, Haringey
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those general practitioner practices in the Haringey health authority area intending to hold their own budget as from April in the current year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Tim Chessells, chairman of the North East Thames regional health authority, for details.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to place the Audit Commission's annual financial audit of each district health authority in the public domain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Audit Commission's certificate on each district health authority's accounts is published with the accounts and will include any qualifications which the commission has found it necessary to make. In addition, the commission will make public reports "in the public interest" where particularly significant issues arise. Beyond this, its reports are properly directed to the authority itself.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the current waiting list for each specialty in the Haringey health authority and the number of people who have waited(a) for over one year and (b) for over two years, in each specialty.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest available information, at September 1990, is given in the table. It is the time individual patients wait that matters, not total numbers on the list. In the 18 months to September 1990 the number of patients waiting over one year for treatment in Haringey district health authority fell by 51 per cent.
  79

  Waiting list including those waiting over 1 year and over 2 years September 1990

  Specialty

  Gross less self-deferred

  Waiting over one year*

  Waiting over two year

  General surgery

  661

  174

  30

  Urology

  230

  51

  16

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  421

  170

  66

  ENT

  0

  0

  0

  Ophthalmology

  234

  17

  0

  Oral Surgery

  89

  0

  0

  Plastic Surgery

  0

  0

  0

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  173

  1

  0

  Return Totals

  1,811

  413

  112

  Source: SM 12: returns KH06, KHO7 and KHO7A

  *includes numbers waiting over 2 years.

  Clinical Regrading
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in relation to the time scale of the clinical regrading appeals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A number of letters on this subject have been received. Appeals against clinical grading decisions are heard under a complicated and time-consuming procedure agreed by the general Whitley council. We know that some nurses are unhappy about the time taken to hear their appeals under this agreement. When the clinical grading structure was negotiated, we offered to discuss a streamlined procedure specifically for clinical grading appeals. The nursing trade unions chose not to pursue this possibility and insisted on retaining the existing complex procedures.

  Pharmaceutical Pricing
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish his response to the European Community Commission's recent questionnaire on pharmaceutical pricing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am arranging for copies of our response to the Commission of the European Communities questionnaire and of the questionnaire itself to be placed in the Library.

  The response affirms the Government's wish to promote an open competitive market, and to take a positive part in future Community discussions on cost controls. The Government support discussions and exchanges of information between member states on matters of common interest in pharmaceuticals, including comparisons of prices and qualities of products to encourage rational prescribing, classification and identification systems, pack sizes, and availability of generics. There are considerable differences between member states' health care systems and their arrangements for controlling pharmaceutical expenditure. The Government consider, however, that a prescriptive central approach to price and profit controls should be avoided. Matters to do with the organisation and financing of health care are for member states.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is considering any changes to the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We continue to operate the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme under the 1986 80
  agreement with the pharmaceutical industry. The scheme will continue to operate unless either side gives six months' notice of termination not earlier than April 1992. In considering future arrangements, as well as the working of the scheme, we will take account of the effects of any relevant European Community developments on price and profit controls and of the indicative prescribing scheme.

  Local Authority Child Care
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in England were received into local authority care where the specific cause was family homelessness, in every year since 1979 until the last year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest available figures are the provisional statistics for the year ending 31 March 1989. The number of children received into voluntary care under section 2 of the Child Care Act in England for the years ending 31 March 1979 to 31 March 1989 where the specific cause was that their family was homeless is given in the table.

  Children admitted to Care due to Homelessness England, 1979–891

  During year ending 31 March

  Due to Homelessness

  1979

  421

  1980

  529

  1981

  471

  1982

  378

  1983

  317

  1984

  244

  1985

  215

  1986

  207

  1987

  209

  1988

  179

  11989

  223

  11989 Figures are provisional.

  Prestwich Hospital
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the patients of Pinfold, Troy and Tottington wards at Prestwich hospital, Salford, will be evacuated, as recommended by the Health Advisory Service/Social Services Inspectorate in its report dated October 1900, No. (90) MI/E e.12.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that Clifton House at Prestwich hospital, Salford, will close by August 1991. Troy ward will close in May, Pinfold in June and Tottington in July.

  Sterilisation
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which district health authorities provide sterilisation within the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information collected centrally is not a form which enables accurate identification of all the district health authorities providing sterilisations.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has conducted any research into links between the availability of sterilisation and incidents of unplanned and regretted pregnancies.
  81
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No research on this specific topic has been commissioned by the Department.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the relative costs of(a) sterilisation for social reasons and (b) continued use of contraception within the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Beds (Trent Region)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the numbers of beds available to national health service patients within the Trent regional health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the number of average daily available beds by district health authority for the Trent region in 1989–90, and the corresponding number of inpatients treated. The latest available information is as follows:

  Number of Beds 1989–90

  Number of Patients treated 1989–90

  Regional Total

  24,554

  698,776

  North Derbyshire

  1,574

  37,345

  South Derbyshire

  2,700

  61,608

  Leicestershire

  4,436

  110,970

  North Lincolnshire

  1,413

  36,600

  South Lincolnshire

  1,481

  39,124

  Bassetlaw

  409

  15,110

  Central Nottinghamshire

  1,484

  43,221

  Nottingham

  3,334

  117,018

  Barnsley

  1,111

  32,908

  Doncaster

  1,657

  47,926

  Rotherham

  1,129

  38,380

  Sheffield

  3,828

  118,566

  Hormone Drugs
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on his Department's survey into the use and misuse of hormone drugs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 19 February at column 87. I will write to the hon. Member when further details are available.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) of 22 March,Official Report, column 254, if he will break down the estimated cost of £28 million for implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; if any sums were included in respect of payments to authorised representatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  £m

  Costs of running a system of authorized representatives under Sections 1 and 2

  15

  Additional costs incurred during assessment process under Section 3 through use of authorised representatives

  3

  82

  £m

  Costs of responding to increased pressures on service provision as a result of Sections 1–3

  10

  The cost estimates were based on detailed preparatory work undertaken independently by one metropolitan borough and one shire county. The metropolitan borough assumed that authorised representatives would not receive payments. The shire county assumed that 50 per cent. would be appointed by local authorities and receive fees and expenses, while the other 50 per cent. would be appointed by disabled people themselves and would receive expenses only.

  GP Lists (Barnsley)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects 1990 figures to be available on the average general practitioner list size for the Barnsley family health services authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The 1990 figure for the average general practitioner list size for the Barnsley family health services authority should be available by the middle of May.

  AIDS
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown by recipient organisation of funds made available during the current financial year to organisations specifically concerned with AIDS education; and if he will indicate in each case the purpose for which those funds are intended.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of Health makes funds available to a range of organisations in both the statutory and voluntary sectors for services connected with AIDS education, care and support.

  In 1990–91 £8·5 million was allocated to the Health Education Authority for the development of the national AIDS public education campaign and a further £1·5 million was allocated to fund the running costs of the national AIDS helpline.

  In addition, health authorities have been asked to ensure that a substantial part of the earmarked AIDS allocation which totalled £129·5 million in 1990–91, is devoted to the development of local HIV prevention work.

  So far as the voluntary sector is concerned, in 1990–91 £1·8 million was provided to AIDS services organisations as follows:

  £

  AIDS Ahead

  40,000

  AIDS Care Education and Training (ACET)

  140,000

  Aled Richards Trust

  45,000

  Barnardo's

  15,000

  Black HIV/AIDS Network

  40,000

  Body Positive

  40,000

  British Association for Counselling

  69,470

  Care and Resources for People with AIDS (CARA)

  15,000

  Frontliners

  50,000

  Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence

  38,000

  Landmark

  60,000

  Local Authority Associations' Officer Working Group on AIDS

  19,000

  London Lighthouse

  300,000

  Mainliners

  40,000

  83

  £

  Mildmay Mission Hospital

  130,000

  National AIDS Trust

  211,000

  Positively Women

  40,000

  Standing Conference on Drug Abuse

  41,000

  Streetwise Youth

  10,000

  Terrence Higgins Trust

  450,000

  These sums are intended as a contribution to the core administrative costs of the organisations concerned but not for specific initiatives or specific areas of their work.

  Health Authority Members
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made for the declaration of interests which may be thought to be associated with the discharge of their duties by his appointed members of regional and district health authorities; in what way any

  Indicative Allocation £

  Bid £

  Amount of allocation not taken up £

  Per cent, of grant allocation not taken up

  Salford

  110,000

  Nil

  110,000

  100·0

  Bromley

  130,000

  76,160

  53,840

  70·1

  Bolton

  120,000

  98,200

  21,800

  22·2

  Havering

  90,000

  75,000

  15,000

  20·0

  Redbridge

  110,000

  100,000

  10,000

  10·0

  Tameside

  90,000

  84,000

  6,000

  7·1

  Essex

  560,000

  531,610

  28,390

  5·3

  Bury

  70,000

  67,900

  2,100

  3·1

  Oxfordshire

  200,000

  198,940

  1,060

  0·5

  Sefton

  110,000

  109,685

  315

  0·3

  Avon

  370,000

  369,437

  563

  0·2

  Stockport

  110,000

  109,807

  193

  0·2

  Hereford

  220,000

  219,649

  351

  0·1

  Nottinghamshire

  400,000

  399,700

  300

  <0·1

  Warwickshire

  170,000

  169,995

  5

  <0·1

  Hammersmith

  150,000

  149,940

  60

  <0·1

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Education
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total financial allocation to each of the education boards in 1985 and 1990.

  Financial allocations to Education and Library Boards

  1985–86 (Financial Year)

  Belfast £000s

  North-Eastern £000s

  South-Eastern £000s

  Southern £000s

  Western £000s

  Total £000s

  Recurrent

  42,647

  44,886

  37,805

  42,193

  38,955

  206,486

  Capital

  2,824

  4,476

  2,834

  3,841

  4,020

  17,995

  1990–91 (Financial Year)

  Recurrent

  61,424

  72,276

  61,644

  70,033

  62,870

  328,247

  Capital

  7,944

  9,847

  10,097

  13,269

  9,064

  50,221

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students transferring from primary school to second level education in 1990 were not placed in a school by(a) August, (b) September, (c) October and (d) later than October.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information supplied by the education and library boards indicates that the number of pupils transferring from primary school to secondary level 84
  such interests are made public; and what criteria or code he has published as a guide to the compilation of any such registers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Provisions relating to declaration of interests are set out in the Regional and District Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990–11 (6), 13 and 20—and are covered in guidance issued on 12 July 1990. No specific guidance has been issued on the compilation of registers of interest.

  Mental Health Grant
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the local authorities which have indicated that they are not taking up the full amount of the new mental health specific grant.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 March 1991 c. 351–54]: I regret that the table published contained errors. The local authorities which have indicated that they are not taking up the full amount of the new mental illness specific grant should read as follows:

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  education in 1990 who were not placed in a school by the end of August was 31. All of these pupils were placed in a school by the end of September.

  Health and Social Services Boards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names and addresses of the new members of the area health and social services boards.
  85
  Mr. Hanley
  The names of the chairmen and non-executive members of each health and social services board are as follows.

  Eastern Board

  Mr. N. G. D. Ferguson (Chairman)

  Mr. D. J. McGuinness

  Mr. P. McLachlan

  Mrs. B. McLaughlin

  Mr. J. C. Morton

  Professor R. G. Shanks

  Mrs. J. R. Smyth

  Northern Board

  Mr. R. J. Hanna (Chairman)

  Lady J. Brett

  Mr. D. J. Clement

  Professor M. E. H. Connolly

  Mr. J. D. McMullan

  Mr. M. A. O'Connor

  Mrs. A. V. Smyth

  Southern Board

  Mr. J. D. Thompson (Chairman)

  Mrs. S. Fisher

  Mr. W. F. Gillespie

  Mr. B. J. McShane

  Mrs. J. Power

  Mr. C. A. J Quinn

  Mr. D. J. Ryan

  Western Board

  Mr. R. G. Toland (Chairman)

  Mrs. M. R. Cooper

  Mr. W. S. Donaghey

  Mr. A. Jackson

  Mr. P. J. Kelley

  Mrs. C. R. Lavery

  Mrs A. F. Mark

  Irish Republican Army
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply of 11 December 1990,Official Report, column 365, whether there is any relationship between the official Irish Republican Army and any political party in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am not able either to confirm or deny any such relationship.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost of implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of implementing sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 has not yet been estimated.

  Government support was given to the introduction of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act on the basis that it would be brought into effect in stages as resources permitted. Sections 9, 10, part of 11 and 12 came into operation on 7 December 1989.

  On 1 April 1991, sections 5 and 6 of the Act, and parts of sections 4, 8 and 11, were brought into force. These provisions require health and social services boards to assess the needs of disabled people for certain social welfare services, and the ability of their carers to provide appropriate care. Boards are also required, in association with education and library boards, to ensure that young disabled people have a smooth transition from full-time
  86
  education to adult life. Substantial resources have been made available to boards to enable them to implement these provisions.

  With the implementation of these sections of the 1989 Act, Northern Ireland is now fully in line with Great Britain as far as the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Representation and Consultation) Act 1986 is concerned. The intention is to maintain this position of parity.

  Of the provisions of the 1989 Act still to be brought into effect, sections 1 and 2 provide for the appointment of an authorised representative either by the disabled person concerned or by the relevant health and social services board. Section 3 requires the relevant board to give a disabled person or his authorised representative the right to make representations about his need for services, to provide on request a written statement on the assessed need for services and to respond to representations about any such statement.

  The implementation of these sections has been overtaken by wider developments in the community care field. The policy paper "People First" which was published last year, sets out the way forward for community care in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. Its wide-ranging proposals reflect and indeed amplify the spirit of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1989 Act.

  For example, from 1 April 1991 health and social services boards have been required to put in place new complaints procedures which will ensure the formal investigation of all complaints or representations about community care services made by individuals or by anyone on their behalf. From 1 April 1993, comprehensive assessment arrangements will be introduced covering the community care needs of all people who are vulnerable through aging, chronic mental illness, mental handicap or physical disability. A written statement of the result of assessments and the services to be provided under agreed care plans will be provided on request. The Department of Health and Social Services is currently assessing the resources needed to bring these developments fully into effect, and will ensure that boards prepare for their introduction over the intervening two years.

  In the light of these initiatives the implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 would be largely unnecessary, as their impact in the main will be achieved through the wider community care reforms. To press ahead with them now would be to run the risk of imposing upon boards complex administrative arrangements which they would have to fund at the expense of services. As in Great Britain, it has therefore been decided not to implement these sections, but the situation will be carefully reviewed when the impact of the wider community care reforms can be assessed.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how he intends to allocate the additional revenue in Northern Ireland from value added tax consequent upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement, this change arises from a substantial switch from local to
  87
  central taxation in the United Kingdom as a whole and will result in reduced domestic rates bills in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to limit the impact of the rise in value added tax upon citizens in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In view of the long-standing principle of parity in taxation throughout the United Kingdom, no such measures are necessary or appropriate.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional funds he is allocating to local government bodies and area boards following the increase in value added tax.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  VAT paid by local government bodies and area boards is recoverable and the increase will not therefore affect expenditure.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the reduction in rates by each council in Northern Ireland as a result of the increase in value added tax.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total domestic rate poundage in each district council area will be reduced by an additional 82p. The district rate element remains unchanged but the reduction in the total domestic rate poundage—the domestic regional rate plus the district rate—will be 36 per cent. on average.

  11-plus
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students went through the 11-plus transfer procedure in 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of 25,783 pupils were in the age group to transfer from primary to secondary education in September 1990. A total of 18,126 sat the transfer procedure tests.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students transferring from primary school to second level education in 1990, with an 11-plus examination grade of (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three and (iv) other, did not get placed in the school of their(a) first choice and (b) first or second choice.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Grades

  1

  2

  3

  Other

  i. pupils who did not obtain a place in the school of first choice

  20

  693

  869

  596

  ii. pupils who did not obtain a place in the school of first or second choice

  2

  418

  320

  233

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students were subject to the appeal tribunal procedure of the 11-plus transfer system in 1990; and in how many cases were appeals(a) allowed and (b) disallowed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The appeal tribunals set up by the education and library boards considered 467 appeals; 249 appeals were successful and 218 were not upheld.

  Customs Service
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given to creating employment for employees of the Northern Ireland Customs Service who will be surplus to customs requirements after 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland is leading an initiative aimed at attracting Government work from the south-east of England to Northern Ireland and is achieving success. The recent and very welcome decision by HM Customs and Excise to transfer 100 VAT administration jobs from London to Newry will go a long way to providing work for Customs and Excise staff who will become surplus to requirements in 1992. The IDB is continuing its efforts to attract more work from both the public and private sectors in Great Britain.

  Roads
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions he has had representations from the Government of the Irish Republic about the closure of border roads.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The closure of border roads has been discussed regularly at Anglo-Irish Conferences, and through the Anglo-Irish secretariat.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many low-income pensioners have gained from the extra increases in income support that took effect earlier this month.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Some 400,000 claimants have gained directly from the extra increase in the basic pensioner premium in income support; well over 1·5 million have gained through housing benefit or community charge benefit. This means that since the beginning of October 1989 there has been a real increase in every one of the pensioner premiums applying to around 6 million people at a total cost of around £300 million.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are receiving income support in the areas covered by the Blyth Valley Department of Social Security office.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 28 February 1991 there were 8,326 income support claims at the Department's office in Blyth.

  Notes: Data derived from 100 per cent. count of cases in action, which include a number where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners claim income support in Blyth Valley; and what this is as a percentage of all pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 28 February 1991 there were 2,559 income support claims from pensioners at the
  89
  Department's office in Blyth. Data are not available on the total pensioner population in Blyth on the date and for the precise geographical area to which the above information relates.

  Note: Data derived from 100 per cent. count of cases in action, which include a number where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many adults in Scotland over the age of 18 years are dependent on income support for their livelihood at the latest date for which figures are available;

  (2) how many people are in receipt of income support in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In May 1989, the latest date for which information is available, some 565,000 people in Scotland over the age of 18 were wholly or in part dependent on income support. This total comprises 483,000 claimants, 81,000 partners, and fewer than 500 dependants aged 18 or over. This information is drawn from the May 1989 "Annual Statistical Enquiry", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the impact of recent technological developments upon the disabled.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson).

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he intends to take to increase the availability of staff at DSS offices in response to the increase in applications for benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The staff resource allocation to DSS offices is based on a system which takes account of workload forecasts. The benefit agency monitors these forecasts and the staffing allocation and determines what action is necessary in respect of any changes. Account is taken of both increases and decreases in benefit workloads as some changes can be partly or wholly offset against others.

  Sick and Disabled People
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the figure for the average annual increase in spending on long-term stick and disabled people(a) since 1979 and (b) for the period 1974 to 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  We are currently spending £10·1 billion per year on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people. This represents an annual increase of £470 million per year at 1990–91 prices since 1979, compared with £310 million per year between 1974 and 1979.

  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent figure for the 90
  average annual increase in spending on long-term sick and disabled people since 1979; and what were the comparable figures for the period 1974 to 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson).

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much pensioners' total incomes would have increased since 1979 if the rate of increase between 1974 and 1979 had continued; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The average net pensioner income increased by only 3 per cent., in real terms, between 1974 and 1979. My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that, had this rate of growth continued, the increase in pensioners' net incomes, in 1987 prices, between 1979 and 1987 would have been a mere £3·80 per week when in fact they rose by £24 during this period.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received regarding the income and related matters of pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Secretary of State recently met delegates from the Pensioners Convention. Ministers have also, in recent months, met representatives of four national pensioner organisations.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the earnings disregard in invalid care allowance; and what its value was two years ago.

  Mr. Scott
  On 8 April the earnings limit for invalid care allowance increased from £20 to £30 a week. In April 1989 the limit was £12.

  Claimants
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is implementing to improve service to social security claimants.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester).

  Family Credit
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on advertising family credit since September 1989; and by how many the number of recipients has increased.

  Mr. Jack
  There were 319,000 family credit awards in payment for September 1989. The number then fell every month until the end of the year, when it stood at 298,000. Further advertising from mid-November and subsequently cost a total of £6·1 million. The caseload then rose each month from January 1990 until July when it reached 326,000 and then averaged well over 320,000 throughout the second half of 1990. This is a considerable achievement when viewed against the background of a constantly changing eligible population.
  91
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of new claims for family credit was unsuccessful in the last month for which information is available.

  Mr. Jack
  Some 48·4 per cent. of new family credit claims cleared during March 1991 were unsuccessful. This includes claims which were withdrawn or invalid, as well as those where it was decided that the family was not entitled to benefit.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of family credit award is necessary(a) to activate entitlement to other benefits for which entitlement to or receipt of family credit is a condition and (b) prevents the claimant from making a new claim for family credit if her circumstances change during the currency of the award.

  Mr. Jack
  Entitlement to other benefits, such as the remission of NHS charges and certain payments from the social fund, exists only for families who are in receipt of family credit. Where the amount of family credit entitlement is less than 50p a week it is not payable and therefore in that situation there would be no automatic entitlement to the other benefits.

  Family credit is payable for 26 weeks and the rate at which it is payable is not affected by any change of circumstances during that period. Thus, whenever family credit entitlement is 50p a week or more, and therefore payable, no account can be taken of a change of circumstances during the currency of an award.

  Low-Income Workers
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures the Government have implemented since 1983 to assist working people on low incomes.

  Mr. Jack
  Tax and national insurance contribution changes have ensured that working people keep more of their own pay. The reformed benefit system has resulted in a huge reduction in the number of working people who would be better off on benefit, and people no longer find themselves worse off as a result of increasing their earnings.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the retired population has an occupational pension; and what is the percentage for the most recently retired.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, in 1987, 52 per cent. of all pensioners and 73 per cent. of recently retired pensioners received income from occupational pensions.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further help he will give to people past retirement age who rely on state benefits as their sole source of income.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As a proportion of all pensioners, the number of people past state pension age living solely 92
  on state benefits, including those for disability, fell from 23 per cent. in 1979 to 16 per cent. in 1987. All pensioners' benefits are regularly uprated. In addition, income support and other income-related benefits for elderly people have recently been increased by more than the normal uprating index.

  Tax Benefit Withdrawals
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people earn less than the respective point at which the tax benefit withdrawal level falls to 34 per cent.

  Mr. Jack
  Reliable estimates are not available on the basis requested. Estimates of the number of full-time workers receiving income-related benefits and facing combined income tax and benefit withdrawal rates in excess of 40 per cent. were given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 8 March at column 314–15. It is very unlikely that there are any full-time workers facing marginal deduction rates between 34 per cent. and 40 per cent.

  One-parent Benefit
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is(a) the weekly benefit entitlement when not working of a single parent with two children aged eight and 12 years and (b) the weekly income of a single parent with two children, also aged eight and 12 years, with earnings of £10, £15, £20, £30, £40 and £50.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is set out in the table. All assumptions are as set out in the published tax/benefit model tables. The family is assumed to live in council property appropriate to its size and to pay estimated average rent and community charge. Average rents are provisional 1991–92 figures and community charge has been assessed at £250 per annum. Any relevant changes announced in the Budget, including the increase in child benefit which will take effect in October, have also been incorporated. It has been assumed that the earnings of £10 to £30 a week are in respect of part-time work with the family remaining in receipt of income support. This means that the net income will remain static once the earnings disregard of £15·00 a week has been reached.

  It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use hypothetical rents, so do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can pay.

  Single person with two children aged 8 and 12 Total net income on Income Support: £121·55 Net income after rent and Community Charge on Income Support: £91·14

  Gross earnings £pw

  Total net income £pw

  Net income after rent and community charge (£pw)

  10·00

  131·55

  101·14

  15·00

  136·55

  106·14

  20·00

  136·55

  106·14

  30·00

  136·55

  106·14

  40·00

  148·34

  117·93

  50·00

  150·08

  119·67

  93
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the numbers and percentages of(a) women and (b) men in receipt of one-parent benefit (i) in 1979, (ii) in 1989 and (iii) in 1990.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is set out in the table.

  One parent benefit: Male and Female claimants

  Number

  Women per cent.

  Number

  Men per cent.

  Total

  1979

  334,000

  87

  50,000

  13

  384,000

  1989

  637,000

  91

  60,000

  9

  698,000

  1990

  681,000

  92

  63,000

  8

  744,000

  Notes:

  1. The figures are for 31 December of each year and are rounded.

  Estimated average numbers receiving benefits at any one time1

  thousands

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Retirement pension

  8,530

  8,680

  8,880

  9,015

  9,115

  9,210

  9,350

  Widows' benefits

  495

  490

  475

  460

  445

  440

  425

  Unemployment benefit

  570

  550

  960

  1,220

  1,090

  1,020

  1,020

  Sickness benefit2

  560

  490

  435

  445

  395

  170

  180

  Statutory sick pay2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  240

  Invalidity benefit

  600

  620

  620

  660

  700

  760

  825

  Industrial disablement benefit3

  270

  270

  265

  260

  265

  265

  260

  Industrial death benefit

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  Maternity allowance

  100

  115

  120

  125

  125

  110

  120

  Statutory maternity pay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  65

  55

  50

  50

  45

  40

  35

  War pension

  385

  370

  360

  345

  330

  315

  305

  Attendance allowance

  265

  285

  315

  350

  390

  445

  490

  Invalid care allowance

  5

  5

  5

  5

  10

  10

  10

  Severe disability allowance

  150

  165

  175

  180

  195

  210

  245

  Mobility allowance

  95

  140

  185

  210

  265

  315

  390

  Income support/Supplementary benefit4

  3,020

  2,920

  3,110

  3,725

  4,165

  4,435

  4,665

  Child benefit—numbers of children5

  13,480

  13,330

  13,160

  13,145

  12,890

  12,660

  12,430

  One parent benefit

  290

  370

  430

  470

  510

  540

  565

  Family credit/Family income supplement

  85

  80

  95

  125

  165

  200

  205

  Housing benefit67

  rent rebate

  1,210

  1,205

  1,330

  1,590

  3,050

  3,735

  3,745

  rent allowance

  225

  220

  240

  250

  260

  1,015

  1,080

  rate rebate

  3,055

  3,065

  3,350

  3,700

  5,320

  7,020

  7,230

  Community charge rebates/benefit8—caseload

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Estimated average numbers receiving benefits at any one time1

  thousands

  Percentage increase

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1978–79 to 1990–91

  Retirement pension

  9,400

  9,575

  9,685

  9,710

  9,795

  9,905

  16·1

  Widows' benefits

  410

  400

  385

  370

  375

  365

  -26·3

  Unemployment benefit

  955

  1,005

  815

  600

  375

  385

  -32·5

  Sickness benefit2

  160

  100

  105

  105

  105

  105

  -81·3

  Statutory sick pay2

  245

  320

  345

  365

  360

  360

  n/a

  Invalidity benefit

  865

  935

  1,010

  1,100

  1,190

  1,270

  111·7

  Industrial disablement benefit3

  265

  285

  290

  295

  295

  305

  13·0

  Industrial death benefit

  30

  30

  25

  30

  30

  25

  -16·7

  Maternity allowance

  115

  110

  1030

  15

  20

  20

  -80·0

  Statutory maternity pay

  80

  80

  90

  95

  n/a

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  35

  40

  35

  35

  35

  35

  -46·2

  War pension

  295

  280

  270

  265

  265

  265

  -31·2

  Attendance allowance

  555

  605

  670

  730

  795

  890

  235·8

  Invalid care allowance

  10

  925

  80

  100

  115

  125

  24,00·0

  Severe disablement allowance

  245

  265

  265

  270

  280

  295

  96·7

  Mobility allowance

  420

  460

  515

  560

  585

  630

  563·2

  Income support/Supplementary benefit4

  4,765

  5,059

  5,020

  4,310

  4,155

  4,165

  37·9

  Child benefit—numbers of children5

  12,375

  12,175

  12,040

  12,010

  12,000

  12,165

  -9·8

  One parent benefit

  590

  615

  660

  705

  735

  760

  162·1

  Family credit/Family income supplement

  205

  215

  220

  280

  305

  315

  270·6

  Housing benefit67

  rent rebate

  3,710

  3,720

  3,665

  3,125

  2,950

  3,030

  150·4

  94
  2. Before 1981 One Parent Benefit was known as Child Benefit Increase.

  Source Departmental records.

  Claimants
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received each of the main social security benefits in each year from 1979 to the latest date available; and what was the percentage increase from 1979 in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  Estimates of the numbers of claimants receiving each of the main benefits for the years 1978–79 to 1990–91 and the percentage increases since 1979 are shown in the tables.
  95

  thousands

  Percentage increase

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1978–79 to 1990–91

  rent allowance

  1,150

  1,180

  1,195

  965

  955

  975

  333·3

  rate rebate

  7,020

  7,050

  6,875

  5,150

  4,320

  11155·2

  Community charge rebates/benefit8—caseload

  865

  7,795

  1 For contributory and non income-related benefits the number of individuals receiving benefit are shown. For retirement pension women receiving their own pension, based on their own or their husbands' contributions, are counted separately. For income support/supplementary benefit and family credit/family income supplement the numbers are individuals or couples where living together. For housing benefit the number of households receiving benefit are shown. Beneficiaries may be receiving more than one benefit at any time.

  2 Reflects the introduction of statutory sick pay in April 1983 and its extension to 28 weeks from April 1986.

  3 Recipients of Disablement Pension and/or Reduced Earnings Allowance.

  4 Figures to 1987–88 include those receiving housing benefit supplement (some 440,000 in 1987–88) who are also included in the figures for housing benefit recipients.

  5 Numbers of children in families receiving child benefit, including those also receiving one parent benefit.

  6 There is significant overlap: most households getting assistance with rent will also be in receipt of rate rebate/community charge benefit.

  7 Figures to 1981–82 relate only to the rebate and allowance scheme for those not receiving supplementary benefit. Thereafter the figures reflect the partial introduction of the housing benefit scheme from November 1982, and full start from November 1983.

  8 Community Charge rebates payable in Scotland only in 1989–90.

  9 Reflects the decision announced in June 1986 to extend eligibility to invalid care to married women.

  10 Reflects the introduction of statutory maternity pay from 6 April 1987.

  11 Compares community charge benefit recipients in 1990–91 with rate rebate recipients in 1978–79.

  12 Source: Public Expenditure White Papers 1984–1990 and 1991 Departmental Report.

  Benefits and Allowances
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the benefit and allowances to which a married man with eight children under 11 years is entitled if his gross weekly earnings are(a) £90, (b) £120 and (c) £180 and he is paying average rent and rates (i) if he is working and (ii) if he is unemployed and showing the total net weekly spending power in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is set out in the table. All assumptions are as set out in the published tax benefit model tables. Each family is assumed to live in council property appropriate to its size and to pay estimated average rent and community charge. Average rents are provisional 1991–92 figures and community charge has been assessed at £250 per annum. Any relevant changes announced in the Budget, including the increase in child benefit which will take effect in October, have also been incorporated.

  It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use hypothetical rents so they do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can pay.

  Married couple with 8 children aged under 11

  Total net income on Income Support: £232·85

  Total net income after Rent and Community charge on Income Support: £197·63

  Gross earnings £

  Family credit £

  Child benefit £

  Total net income £

  Net income after rent and community charge £

  90·00

  99·89

  61·75

  246·76

  211·54

  120·00

  85·88

  61·75

  252·77

  217·55

  180·00

  58·16

  61·75

  264·65

  229·43

  Note: No rent rebate or Community Charge benefit is payable at these earnings levels. This is due to the high rate of Family Credit.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total number of supplementary benefit, income support and family support recipients and the total cost for each year since 1979 to the latest date available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support1 and Family Income Supplement/Family Credit1: Recipients and expenditure

  Recipients (000's)

  Expenditure (£ million)

  IS/ Supplementary Benefit1

  FC/FIS

  IS/ Supplementary Benefit

  FC/FIS

  1978–79

  3,020

  85

  2,256

  24

  1979–80

  2,920

  80

  2,436

  27

  1980–81

  3,110

  95

  3,172

  42

  1981–82

  3,725

  125

  4,840

  66

  1982–83

  4,165

  165

  6,261

  94

  1983–84

  4,435

  200

  5,591

  123

  1984–85

  4,665

  205

  6,444

  126

  1985–86

  4,765

  205

  7,377

  130

  1986–87

  5,095

  215

  7,962

  161

  1987–88

  5,020

  220

  7,952

  180

  1988–89

  4,310

  280

  7,575

  394

  1989–90

  4,155

  305

  7,675

  425

  1990–91

  4,165

  315

  8,545

  484

  Source: Public Expenditure White Papers and Departmental Report 1991.

  1In April 1988 Supplementary Benefit was replaced by Income Support, and Family Income Supplement was replaced by Family Credit.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the central Government expenditure on rent rebates, rent allowances, rate rebates and family credit in 1979 and 1990; and what was the income level at which these benefits cease and the number of persons in receipt of such benefits in each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information available is in the table. In 1979–80 help with housing costs was provided through the supplementary benefit scheme administered by the Department of Health and Social Security, and the
  97
  rent and rate rebate and rent allowance schemes which were the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. The costs and numbers getting help with housing costs through supplementary benefit are not readily available. The figures for 1979–80 therefore represent Department of the Environment schemes only.

  The expenditure data shown for 1979–80 reflect total local authority spending. This was subsidised at the rate of 90 per cent. The 1990–91 figures are the amount of the central Government grant paid to local authorities through housing benefit subsidy. Direct comparison of the two sets of figures would be misleading because of the limited nature of the information for 1979–80.

  The income level at which eligibility to family income supplement/credit and housing/community charge benefit ceases depends on the size of the household. Additionally in the latter two benefits the level of eligible costs affects entitlement. There is therefore no single income level at which entitlement would cease.

  Expenditure £ million

  Caseload (Thousands)1

  1979–80

  Rent rebate

  238

  1,205

  Rent allowance

  40

  220

  Rate rebate2

  201

  3,065

  Family income supplement3

  27

  80

  1990–91

  Rent rebate

  4510

  3,030

  Rent allowance

  1,549

  975

  Community charge benefit2

  2,192

  7,795

  Family credit3

  484

  315

  Notes:

  1 Estimated average numbers receiving benefits at any one time. For family income supplement/family credit and community charge benefit couples are counted as one. For rent and rate rebates and rent allowances the number of households receiving benefit is shown. Beneficiaries may be receiving more than one benefit at any time.

  Thousands

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–921

  Rent rebate

  —

  1,930

  1,920

  —

  —

  —

  1,760

  1,670

  1,780

  Rent allowance

  —

  520

  540

  —

  —

  —

  580

  610

  590

  Rate rebate/community charge benefit

  3,070

  3,200

  3,190

  3,400

  3,320

  2,920

  3,020

  3,230

  —

  1 Forecast.

  Notes:

  (1) The available data relates to claimants only, not dependants.

  (2) The figures partially overlap as eg. some people who get a rent allowance also get community charge benefit.

  (3) No forecast has yet been made of community charge benefit caseload for 1991–92 because of the recent general reduction in charges.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are dependent on(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit, broken down into claimants, dependants and children for (i) the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow, (ii) Inverclyde district council area, (iii) Strathclyde and (iv) Scotland as a whole.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 March 1991]: Income support and family credit information for the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow and the Inverclyde district council area or in respect of the number of partners or children is unavailable and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Information in respect of Greenock and Port Glasgow local offices, Strathclyde and Scotland is as follows:
  98
  2 Rate rebate in 1979–80, community charge benefit in 1990–91.

  3 Family income supplement in 1979–80, family credit in 1990–91.

  4 From 1990–91, most central Government support for rent rebates appears in the Department of the Environment and Welsh Office programmes, as rent rebate subsidy in England and Wales will be paid from local authorities housing revenue accounts. The amounts for 1990–91 are:

  Rent Rebates (England) £2,297 million

  Rent Rebates (Wales) £158 million.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of people claiming sickness and invalidity benefit at the latest date available; and what was the number of people claiming sickness and invalidity benefit in March 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  The total number of people claiming sickness or invalidity benefit at 28 February 1991, the latest date available, is 1,690,0001. This total is provisional and subject to amendment.

  The total number of people claiming sickness or invalidity benefit on 31 March 1979 was 1,289,0002; and on 1 April 1989 was 1,392,0002.

  1 Source—local office caseload count.

  2 Source—Social Security Statistics.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will state the total number of supplementary benefit recipients, including dependents, as defined for community charge purposes for each year since 1979;

  (2) what was the total number of persons dependent on both social security and housing rebates in (a) 1979–80, (b) 1984–85, (c) 1985–86, (d) 1989–90, (e) 1990–91, for the latest date available, and the forecast for 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information available is listed in the tables. No reliable data exist for the period before 1983–84 on numbers of claimants who got both supplementary benefit and help with housing or rate costs.

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  Income support1

  15,940

  284,900

  506,900

  Family credit

  21,010

  216,200

  339,000

  1 Data derived from February 1991 count of cases in action, which include a number where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  2 Number of awards actually in payment on 8 February 1991, i.e. excludes awards on claims made before that date but not decided at that stage.

  3 True caseload at the end of July 1990, i.e. including backdated awards. Information on this more comprehensive basis is only available for Scotland as a whole.

  Housing benefit information for the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow or in respect of the number of children is unavailable and could be

  99
  obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information in respect of Inverclyde district council area, Strathclyde and Scotland is as follows:

  Inverclyde direct council1

  Strathclyde1

  Scotland

  Claimants2

  11,900

  266,000

  544,000

  Partners2

  33,400

  375,000

  3153,000

  1 Does not include information about New Towns or Scottish Homes properties.

  2 Data relates to August 1990.

  3 Partially estimated.

  Benefits (Norwich)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out in the Official Report the number of people refused unemployment benefit in the Norwich area under the availability/actively seeking work rules since April 1990, the number of claimants in Norwich on income support who have had benefit penalties imposed through the use of the availability/actively seeking work rules since April 1990, and the number of social fund applicants in Norwich who have been refused loans in the last financial year because of local social fund budget restraints.

  Mr. Jack
  The information concerning income support recipients in the Norwich area who have had benefit penalties imposed through the use of the availability/ actively seeking work rules is not kept and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Statistics on unemployment benefit adjudication are not separately identified for Norwich. To indicate trends, figures are provided at table 1 for the East Midlands and Eastern region, which includes Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Suffolk and Nottinghamshire. The information is collected quarterly for the purpose of publication in the "Unemployment Benefit Statistics—Quarterly Analysis of Decisions of Adjudication Officers", a copy of which is available in the Library. Monthly figures are not separately available.

  Information on the number of people being refused social fund loans because of local social fund budget restraints is not collected. Table 2 shows the number of applications refused at the Mountergate and Chantry Norwich offices because they were considered to be for items of insufficient priority.

  Social fund officers are required to take account of the local guidance on priorities, provided by the office manager, and they are further required to view each and every case on its merits having regard to the needs and circumstances of the customer. Wherever possible the social fund officer will look to elevate the overall priority of the application to ensure that payment is made. I understand that the managers of the Norwich local offices have written to the hon. Member separately on the subject of local guidance on priorities, and they will notify him of any future changes to this guidance.
  100

  Table 1

  Adjudication Statistics—East Midlands and Eastern Region (From April 1990)

  Decisions of Adjudication Officers

  Subject

  Period ending

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Availability

  June 90

  317

  490

  September 90

  291

  657

  December 90

  337

  555

  Restricted availability

  June 90

  400

  149

  September 90

  385

  141

  December 90

  436

  115

  Actively seeking work

  June 90

  8

  17

  September 90

  14

  12

  December 90

  20

  10

  Table 2

  Social Fund Loan Refusals for the Norwich Mountergate and Chantry Offices (Period 1 April 90–28 February 91)

  Refusals due to Low Priority

  Budgeting Loans

  Crisis Loans

  Mountergate

  180

  0

  Chantry

  1,229

  1

  Correspondence
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to answer the letter from the hon. Member for Birkenhead, sent on 2 November 1990, and the reminder sent on 20 February 1991, about the chairman of the Attendance Allowance Board.

  Mr. Scott
  I replied to the hon. Member on 27 March.

  Local Office, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to alter the disposition of offices for(a) the payment and (b) the processing of social security benefit claims in Cardiff.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The management team for the new Cardiff district has now been appointed and one of its main priorities is to look at ways to provide the best possible service to its customers. This will include considering a variety of options for organising work and paying benefits within the district. There will be the widest possible consultation with Members of Parliament, and with local statutory and voluntary organisations. Members of Parliament will, therefore, be kept consulted over any proposed changes affecting their constituency.

  Occupational Pensions Board
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will list the current members of the Occupational Pensions Board and give the relevant experience of each member; how many of the board are females; and what percentage of the total membership they comprise.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In addition to the chairman and deputy chairman there are currently 12 members of the Occupational Pensions Board. Four members of the board
  101
  are female—representing almost 29 per cent. of the total membership. As from 6 April 1991 membership of the board is as follows:

  Chairman: SIR JEREMY ROWE, CBE.

  Deputy Chairman: MR. JOHN MARTIN, Consulting Actuary.

  Members:

  Mr. R. AMY

  Compensation and Benefits Director; Former Chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) International Committee; Former Treasurer of the NAPE; Former Chairman of the NAPF Parliamentary Committee.

  Mrs. R. BROWN

  Managing Director; Author and broadcaster on pensions matters; Former member of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC).

  Miss C. H. DAWES

  Pensions lawyer; Member of the Association of Pensions Lawyers (APL); Member of the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service (OPAS) Trust.

  Mr. R. ELLISON

  Pensions lawyer; Member of the APL; Chairman of the Law Society Pensions sub-committee; Council member of the NAPF; Member of the OPAS Trust.

  Mr. R. J. HEBBLETHWAITE

  Financial and marketing adviser.

  Mr. A. U. LYBURN

  Vice-President of the Faculty of Actuaries; General Manager (Personnel) of a large Insurance Company. MR. R. NEALE

  CBI nominee; Former Pension Fund Manager; Member of Governing Council of the OPAS.

  MR. A. PICKERING

  Head of Trade Union Membership Services Department; Pension scheme trustee; Council member and Treasurer-Elect of the NAPF.

  Mr. W. M. R. RAMSAY

  Director and Executive Committee member of a large Asset Management Company.

  Mr. K. R. THOMAS

  TUC nominee; Pension scheme trustee; Member of the OPAS Trust.

  BARONESS TURNER OF CAMDEN

  Principal Opposition Spokesperson on Social Security, Employment and Pensions matters in the House of Lords; Former member of the EOC.

  Miss H. WIESNER

  Consumer consultant; Member of Board of LAUTRO; Member of Board of the Investers Compensation Scheme; Member of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council.

  Rent Rebates
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many tenants in the public and private sectors, respectively, are in receipt of rent rebates; and what percentage this is of the total number of tenants in each sector.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information in respect of Scotland is as follows:

  Percentage of Total tenants

  Tenants in the Public Sector (Rent rebates)

  470,000

  55

  Private Sector (Rent allowances)

  80,000

  39

DEFENCE

  HMS Endurance
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the future of HMS Endurance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to my answer of 25 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter),Official Report, column 304.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received from Colonel Mike Brooke of the Royal Engineers who is leading a six-nation ordnance clean-up team in Kuwait on the scale of the problems which are to be faced.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British forces have been reporting through the military chain of command on a regular basis on their activities. These activities have principally involved immediate humanitarian assistance in Kuwait in areas where we have special expertise, including explosive ordnance disposal.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are given to commanders in the Gulf on the treatment of private photographs or film used to record environmental and ecological scenes by service men stationed in the Gulf; whether confiscation is permitted; and what provision is made for confiscated film to be recovered.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any instructions on the treatment of private photographs or film of environmental and ecological scenes in the Gulf.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 232, if he will set out in tabular form the optical and chemical properties of the oil smoke plume as measured by Royal Air Force aircraft.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Measurements made by the meteorological research flight aircraft within the smoke plume at about 100 km from Kuwait showed the following concentrations:Sulphur dioxide—around 500 ppb (parts per billion); a typical value in an urban environment is 25 ppb.
  Nitrogen oxides—around 25 ppb.
  Ozone —around 40 ppb.
  The nitrogen oxides and ozone levels are consistent with those found in an urban environment.

  At the 100 km distance the soot concentration was about 150 micrograms per cubic metre and contained about 20,000 soot particles per cubic centimetre, 0·1 to 10 microns in size. Visually the particles caused substantial reductions of sunlight beneath the plume and almost complete darkness within the plume. At 1,000 km from Kuwait, particle concentrations within the plume were less than 1,000 per cubic centimetre, only the very smallest particles remained.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been made of the rise and temporary decline in temperature between convenient points in(a) region and (b) time (i) in Kuwait, (ii) Bahrain and (iii) on the Kuwait/Iraq border, as a result of oil-well fire effects.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Meteorological Office has made estimates of the depression of maximum day-time temperatures in the Gulf area based on the generally sparse measurements of surface temperature that are available. When the smoke plume is overhead, calculations indicate that the day-time temperatures in Kuwait city are depressed by 4 to 6 degs. C, in Bahrain the depression is 1 to 3 degs. C. No surface measurements are available from the Kuwait-Iraqi border. Values similar to Kuwait city are expected. Larger depressions of temperature may occur close to the source of the plume and beneath high concentrations of smoke.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in clearing mines and booby traps in the Ahmadi and Magwa oil fields.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British forces have been providing assistance in Kuwait in areas where we have special expertise, including explosive ordnance disposal. Much has already been achieved and progress continues to be made. It is not possible to comment in detail on operations in specific areas as they involve several other agencies and can change from day to day.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the tonnage of bombs dropped by coalition forces on Kuwait and Iraq which(a) missed their target and (b) accurately hit their target.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The assessment of the effectiveness of weapons used by British forces during the conflict is not yet complete. Information is not available for other coalition countries.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information was received from the Soviet Union on the ground deployment of Iraqi forces during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to comment on such matters.

  RAF Edzell
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is funding the recently awarded contract for construction work on the communications building at RAF Edzell.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This work is being funded by the United States navy.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of RAF Edzell.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The role of RAF Edzell is to facilitate the interoperability of Royal Navy and United States navy communications systems, and to provide communications support to Royal Navy ships.

  Oilfield Fires
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to measure and monitor the potential carcinogenic effects on service men of burning oil field smoke of(a) carbon monoxide, (b) carbon dioxide and (c) sulphur dioxide.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. These compounds are not known to be carcinogenic.

  International Military Services
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the intended future role of International Military Services in relation to overseas defence sales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what arrangements he has made to sell International Military Services to the Saudi Arabian Government.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The scale of IMS business is being re-assessed in the light of current market developments. Within overall Government policy, decisions on individual business ventures are matters for the company's commercial judgment and are regarded as commercial in confidence.

  Iraqi Military Equipment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 264, to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) how much Iraqi equipment has been recycled in the period 23 March to 10 April.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Explosives and Propellants Agreement
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place a copy of the explosives and propellants agreement between the Government and British Aerospace/Royal Ordnance in the Library;

  (2) on what date the explosives and propellants agreement, between the Government and British Aerospace/Royal Ordnance, was signed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The explosives and propellants procurement agreement between my Department and Royal Ordnance was signed on 18 August 1986. The details are commercially confidential.

  HMS Daedalus (Slipway)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers are available to his Department for controlling access to and use of the slipway connecting HMS Daedalus to the sea at Marine Parade West, Lee-on-Solent.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence owns the slipway connecting HMS Daedalus to the sea at Marine Parade West, Lee-on-Solent. We therefore have the normal powers of a landowner to regulate access and thus to remove trespassers.

  Radio Frequency Radiation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has performed any trials of the use of radio frequency radiation as a weapon.
  105
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) to the hon. Member on 25 March, column 302.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the organisations and individuals authorised to shoot foxes on Ministry of Defence land at Kirknewton camp, West Lothian, Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No organisations or individuals have been authorised to shoot foxes on Ministry of Defence land at Kirknewton camp.

  Sandhurst and Military Beagles
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is responsible for the costs of staff for the Sandhurst and Military Beagles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst is responsible for the cost of the single kennel huntsman who is employed to look after the Sandhurst and Military Beagles and also part of the academy's grounds.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agencies of the CSCE have so far been set up; what is the foundation and composition of each and where is it located; and when he expects ministers of the CSCE member Governments to meet to more closely define the functions of each of these agencies and enable them to make progress in achieving the tasks assigned to them.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Paris summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe established three institutions: secretariat, conflict prevention centre and office for free elections. The Paris charter, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, defines their size, composition and function.

  The institutions are accountable to the Council of Foreign Ministers of CSCE states, which will meet for the first time in Berlin in June.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions the United Kingdom is making to(a) the Western European Union, and (b) the secretariat and crisis prevention centre of the CSCE and other agencies of that organisation; and what is the approximate manpower in post in each case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom will meet 9·1 per cent. of the approved budgets of the CSCE secretariat, the conflict prevention centre and the office of free elections. When fully operational, these will have a total staff of eight, seven and five respectively. We meet 17 per cent. of the WEU budget. The overall staff total of WEU institutions is approximately 109.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the availability of smog masks in Kuwait.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Many people living and working in Kuwait have acquired smog masks. There is no difficulty in importing them from Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what knowledge he has of the effect of mixture of hydrocarbons and chlorine in the drinking water in Kuwait.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Environmental damage to drinking water supplies and the build-up of hydrocarbons in the food chain in Kuwait are elements proposed as part of the comprehensive environmental assessment now being carried out by the United Nations Environment Programme together with other United Nations agencies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what knowledge he has of the countries to which substantial numbers of the population of Kuwait have fled since the end of the war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Many of those who were resident in Kuwait at the time of the Iraqi invasion have not yet returned. We have no information about residents who have left Kuwait since 28 February.

  The ICRC, International Committee of the Red Cross, which has a delegation in Kuwait, is in touch with the Kuwaiti Government about the position of foreign communities, including those who may wish to leave the country.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what knowledge he has of the build-up of hydrocarbons in the food chain in Kuwait.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Environmental damage to drinking water supplies and the build-up of hydro-carbons in the food chain in Kuwait are elements proposed as part of the comprehensive environmental assessment now being carried out by the United Nations Environment Programme together with other UN agencies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has of the effects of oil pollution on the lungs of sheep in Kuwait.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the diaspora of Palestinians from Kuwait since 1 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We do not hold details of departures by Palestinian residents of Kuwait. We have repeatedly expressed our concern to Kuwaiti Ministers about reports of ill-treatment of Palestinians. ICRC representatives in Kuwait are now in touch with the Kuwaiti Government about their position.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the ill-treatment and torture of Palestinians in Kuwait.
  107
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We continue to express our concern to the Kuwaiti authorities that Palestinians should be treated fairly and in accordance with the law. Our latest reports suggest that the situation is improving. The ICRC, which has been given access to Palestinian detainees, confirms that their conditions have greatly improved. We shall continue to monitor the situation and raise it with the Government of Kuwait whenever necessary.

  Dried Milk (Embargo)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken since 8 March concerning the embargo on dried milk for Iraq being applied to Jordan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations sanctions against Iraq do not apply to Jordan. We have no evidence that shipments of dried milk to Jordan have been affected.

  NATO
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals are currently under discussion for the reconfiguration of NATO.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The NATO summit, held in London in July 1990, agreed on the adaptation of the alliance to the changes taking place in Europe. This review process, which is likely to be completed later this year, involves changes in NATO's strategy and force structures, including the development of smaller, more mobile and flexible active forces, increasing reliance on multinational formations, reduced readiness and training requirements and greater reliance on the ability to build up larger forces if and when they might be needed. In the nuclear field, the alliance will maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, based in Europe, and kept up to date where necessary. But the size and tasks of NATO's nuclear deterrent forces will change. NATO's political role is also changing to reflect the changed political situation in Europe. The alliance has extended the hand of friendship to the Soviet Union and the eastern European countries. Contacts between these countries and NATO are increasing in frequency and scope.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Special European Council met on 8 April. Ministers discussed the political, security and economic aspects of the post-war situation in the Gulf. At British request, they considered the plight of the refugees in and from Iraq and agreed to provide 150 mecu in emergency aid. Ministers condemned the Iraqi Government's repression of its civilian population particularly the Kurds and called for the maintenance of sanctions while current Iraqi policies persist. Ministers also considered the conditions for peace and stability in the region and the role of the Community in the peace process. I also refer my hon. Friend to the statement on the 108
  situation in Iraq made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs this afternoon.

  The Economic and Finance Council met on 8 April and discussed tax issues relating to road transport; the financial implications of the Commission's 1991–92 common agricultural policy price-fixing proposals; the Commission's proposals for a loan to Romania; articles 4 and 8 of the takeovers directive; and the regulated markets provision of the investment services directive. New proposals to remove withholding taxes on cross-border interest and royalty payments within groups of companies and to provide tax relief for the losses of companies' overseas permanent establishments and subsidiaries were formally presented to the Council, although without discussion. The Ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union on 8 April discussed progress made by Ministers' personal representatives over the last month, in particular focusing on capital liberalisation and transition to stage 2.

  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 15 April and may discuss the follow-up to the informal European Council meeting of 8 April. It will review progress in the EC-EFTA negotiations on a European economic area and consider the next steps in the negotiations. The Commission might report on the negotiations taking place for association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In EPC discussions, Ministers may discuss, inter alia, the latest developments in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Albania. Ministers will discuss EC-Japan relations including a draft declaration, which the presidency and Commission intend to agree with Japan in May and also the Commission's draft document on the energy charter. A ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference on political union will be held on 17 April and will discuss a full range of issues including an overview of progress in negotiations.

  The Fisheries Council will meet on 18 April and will discuss the 10th and 11th amendments to the conservation regulation, the Commission communications on the common fisheries policy and data on the landing of fisheries products in member states.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 22–23 April and will discuss the 1991 price-fixing proposals and the agriculture aspects of the GATT Uruguay round.

  The Research Council will meet on 24 April and may discuss relations with the European Parliament in the light of its request for the Commission to withdraw the five proposals for research programmes under the third framework programme on which the Council has agreed common positions. The Council will discuss the position of foreign-owned companies in Community research programmes. It is possible that common positions will be agreed on the information technologies, biomedical and health, non-nuclear energy, industrial and materials, and agro-industrial research programmes of the third framework programme.

  The Industry Council will meet on 29 April and may discuss the Commission's communications on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), biotechnology and the future of the ECSC Treaty. Ministers may also discuss industrial policy, the consumer electronics and semiconductors industries and the state of work concerning the textiles industry (annual report).

  Palestinians
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for 'Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 259, whom he classifies as representative Palestinians; and what information he has on calls for elections in the occupied territories by Palestinians living there.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not for us to say who should form a Palestinian delegation, but if a negotiation with Israel is to achieve results it is essential for this delegation to be able to speak on behalf of the majority of Palestinians. There is a continuing debate in the occupied territories on the desirability of elections there and the form these might take: no consensus has yet emerged.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits to the Diyarbakir region of Turkey have been made by Her Majesty's Government's staff from the embassy in that country; whether they visited the Iraqi Kurdish refugee camps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 10 April a first secretary from our embassy in Ankara, together with a senior Overseas Development Administration official, travelled to southeast Turkey for a four-day visit to view at first hand the refugee camps and the effectiveness of the relief effort. Also, our air attaché in Ankara has been in Incirlik from the outset of the relief operation, and flew with the first RAF relief sortie.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he consulted(a) the United States of America and (b) Japan on the recent review of Government policy towards Antarctica.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We did not consult the USA or Japan during the recent review of United Kingdom policy on Antarctica. However, once the review was complete we put the United Kingdom proposals to all Antarctic treaty consultative parties, including the USA and Japan, for their consideration in advance of the special consultative meeting in Madrid later this month.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are to be the objectives of the Government at the forthcoming meeting of Antarctic treaty parties in Madrid in April with regard to(a) a prohibition on mining, (b) the time limit on any prohibition and (c) the mechanisms necessary to extend the prohibition.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote to all Members of Parliament on 25 March setting out the United Kingdom's proposals for a moratorium on mining in Antarctica which we believe may hold the key to a return to consensus.

  We have not proposed a specific length for the moratorium or a mechanism for its termination or extension. We have, however, made clear our requirement that a legal vacuum at the end of the moratorium should be avoided. These issues will be taken forward at the meeting in Madrid.
  110
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which European Community partners he consulted on the recent review of Antarctica policy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We did not consult our EC partners while conducting the review of United Kingdom policy on Antarctica. However, once the review was complete, we put our proposals to all Antarctic treaty consultative parties including France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Germany, for their consideration in advance of the special consultative meeting that will be held in Madrid later this month.

  Japanese Prisoners of War
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards claims by British ex-prisoners of war for compensation against the Japanese Government for injury suffered during the 1939–1945 war.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The question of compensation for the sufferings of former British prisoners of war of Japan was settled in the 1951 treaty of peace with Japan. We received a total of £4,816,473 from the Japanese Government, which was paid to claimants in instalments between 1952 and 1956. The level of compensation was less than we would have wished, but it was agreed by the allied powers that the Japanese Government had fully discharged their obligations.

  Libya
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his German counterpart about the involvement of German companies in the development of Libya's chemical weapons plant at Sebha; and if he will raise the matter at the next European Foreign Affairs Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have been, and remain, in close touch at all levels with the German authorities about this issue.

  Kurds
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 550, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), what recent meetings Her Majesty's Government's representatives have had with representatives of Kurdish movements in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Iraqi Kurdish representatives on 9 April. I met Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, in Damascus on 12 March. Contacts between officials and Kurdish representatives continue.

  Mr. Abdul Malik
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on the application made by Abdul Malik (Ref: IMM/99947) to the post in Islamabad to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  111
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit as soon as possible.

  Mr. Rashad Mahmood
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be made on the application made by Rashad Mahmood (Ref: IMM/82219) to the post in Islamabad to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Solomon Smolyar
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Soviet Government about their failure to grant an exit visa to Solomon Smolyar of Leningrad who has been offered treatment at the Rambam medical centre in Haifa.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Smolyar's case is among those on which we regularly press the Soviet authorities, and has been raised again recently. We shall keep up the pressure until there is a satisfactory outcome.

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate has been made of the cost of not having a single seat for the European Parliament.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are not aware of any single official estimate.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Council of Ministers last discussed the seat of the European Parliament.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Council of Ministers has not held a formal discussion of the European Parliament seat for some years. But the subject has been discussed informally at various times. Heads of Government briefly considered the European Parliament seat at the Dublin European Council last June.

  Hong Kong and China
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his visit to Hong Kong and China from 1 to 10 April.

  Mr. Hurd
  I paid an official visit to China from 3–8 April at the invitation of the Chinese Foreign Minister, and visited Hong Kong for a day at each end of that visit. This was the first visit by a Foreign Secretary to China since 1986.
  112
  In Peking I had two full sessions of talks with the Foreign Minister and met the Party General Secretary, the Premier, the chairman of the National People's Congress and the director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office. With the Foreign Minister, I covered major international issues of common concern, including the middle east, arms proliferation and Cambodia. We also discussed a number of bilateral matters, including commercial relations. I raised our concerns about human rights, including in Tibet, both with the Foreign Minister and with the General Secretary.

  A central element in my discussions was Hong Kong. I told the Chinese that we wanted to intensify work on the practical issues which need to be resolved in order to ensure a smooth transition in 1997. In achieving this we need to respect two key principles. On the one hand, Britain, China and Hong Kong need to co-operate on the implementation of the joint declaration. On the other, the Hong Kong Government need to be able to fulfil their duty to govern effectively. Seeking the views of China on certain important matters, and paying close attention to those views where possible, is compatible with those principles, but the task of taking decisions rests with the Hong Kong Government.

  The Chinese reaffirmed their support for the joint declaration and agreed that we should strengthen the work of the joint liaison group. We were unable to achieve a breakthrough on the question of Chinese support for the new airport in Hong Kong. It is an economic fact that private investment in such a project is unlikely to appear unless investors are confident that it has Chinese support.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what shark products in what quantities have been imported into Hong Kong in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: The only shark product of significant quantity imported into Hong Kong is shark fin. The following quantities have been imported over the past three years:

  Tonnes

  1988

  3,738

  1989

  3,556

  1990

  3,838

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Hong Kong authorities to make the next assessment of the total commercial ivory stock held within the colony.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: It is likely that the Hong Kong authorities will initiate the next assessment of the total commercial ivory stock held in Hong Kong towards the end of this year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the ivory exported from Hong Kong since 17 July 1990 in accordance with the CITES requirements.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: No commercial exports of ivory covered by CITES have been authorised since midnight on 17 July 1990 except for one pre-convention specimen, consisting of one antique piece weighing 0·1 kg.
  113
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 55, if he will state the disposal arrangements for the ivory name seals and blocks seized in Japan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: The disposal of the ivory name seals and blocks seized in Japan is a matter for the Japanese authorities. The seized items have not been returned to Hong Kong.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is known to his Department about destruction by(a) coalition forces and (b) Iraqi forces of holy places at Samarra; and what he has done since his letter of 28 January to the hon. Member for Linlithgow to avoid damage.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no information about damage to holy places at Samarra. Throughout the air campaign, coalition pilots attacked only military targets or facilities supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. These attacks were carefully planned, and took account of the locations of Islamic holy places and sites of historical importance.

SCOTLAND

  Primary School Testing
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total cost to date of introducing national testing in primary schools, including all costs for advertising, leafleting, training and additional materials in schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 6 February 1991. Expenditure on leaflets and advertising has amounted to £250,000.

  Crofting
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many crofting tenants there now are.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  According to the records held by the Crofters Commission, there were 13,444 crofting tenants at 31 December 1990. This figure includes crofters who are tenants only of a share or shares in common grazings.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many crofts in each crofting area have transferred from tenure to owner-occupancy under the terms of the Crofting Reform Act 1976.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Former county

  Number of whole croft purchases1 inti-mated to the Crofters Commission since enactment of the Crofting Reform Act 1976

  Argyll

  313

  Caithness

  317

  Inverness (including Skye, Harris and Uists)

  591

  114

  Former county

  Number of whole croft purchases1 intimated to the Crofters Commission since enactment of the Crofting Reform Act 1976

  Orkney

  191

  Ross and Cromarty (including Lewis)

  282

  Sutherland

  208

  Shetland

  322

  Total

  2,224

  1 In addition to the figures for whole croft purchases, 447 part-crofts have been purchased and 1,597 croft house sites.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many crofting tenants, by estate, of the Secretary of State have exercised their right to buy(a) the house site and (b) the croft, under the Crofting Reform Act 1976.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Crofting County/Estate

  A

  B

  C

  Argyll

  Ardachy

  2

  2

  —

  Balmeanach

  2

  —

  —

  Bonnavoulin

  —

  —

  1

  Calgarry

  3

  —

  —

  Killeonan

  10

  1

  3

  Kinlochlaich

  2

  1

  —

  Knockvologan

  2

  —

  1

  Moy

  2

  —

  1

  Pottie

  2

  —

  —

  Sunart

  23

  1

  4

  Tomaig

  3

  —

  —

  White Hart Parks

  7

  —

  —

  Total

  58

  5

  10

  Caithness

  Dunn and Scarmclate

  20

  —

  1

  Forss

  1

  —

  —

  Hallum

  1

  —

  —

  Hoy and Braal

  1

  —

  —

  Lochend

  6

  —

  1

  Lybster

  2

  —

  —

  Skaill

  5

  1

  —

  Stempster

  3

  1

  —

  Upper Dounreay

  7

  1

  —

  West Murkle

  4

  —

  —

  West Watten

  11

  —

  —

  Total

  61

  3

  2

  Inverness-shire

  Balranald

  1

  1

  4

  Barra

  —

  2

  9

  Benbecula

  9

  8

  14

  Beolary

  —

  1

  3

  Borve

  —

  1

  2

  Bracadale

  11

  21

  66

  Claigan

  —

  2

  2

  Eoligarry

  1

  2

  8

  Inshes

  10

  —

  1

  Kilbride

  —

  2

  5

  Kilmuir

  22

  56

  83

  Kingsburgh

  4

  5

  11

  Luskentyre

  —

  1

  4

  Mains of Ardersier

  6

  —

  —

  Milton of Culloden

  4

  —

  2

  Ness-side

  4

  —

  —

  Newton

  3

  1

  12

  Raasay

  4

  17

  10

  Scallasaig

  2

  1

  3

  Scaristavore

  —

  1

  3

  115

  Crofting County/Estate

  A

  B

  C

  Scorrybreck

  1

  8

  6

  Tomich

  12

  —

  2

  Vatersay

  —

  —

  1

  Woodside of Culloden

  3

  —

  2

  Total

  97

  130

  253

  Orkney

  Stove

  5

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty

  Arabella

  3

  1

  3

  Balnabean

  2

  —

  3

  Broomhill

  4

  —

  1

  Corntown

  7

  —

  2

  Culcairn

  2

  —

  1

  Dounie

  1

  —

  2

  Geanies

  2

  —

  4

  Kinbeachie

  4

  —

  —

  Kinkell

  2

  —

  2

  Raddery

  3

  —

  1

  Seafield

  4

  —

  1

  Total

  34

  1

  20

  Shetland

  Ordale

  4

  —

  4

  Sutherland

  Armadale

  13

  —

  9

  Borgie

  2

  —

  1

  Syre

  6

  —

  4

  Total

  21

  1

  14

  Grand Total

  280

  140

  303

  A = Whole croft

  B= Part croft

  C = Croft house

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of persons employed by the Crofters Commission(a) in the Inverness headquarters and (b) elsewhere in the crofting counties, in each of the last five years and in 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The numbers of staff employed in the Inverness headquarters of the Crofters Commission on 1 April in each of the years were:

  Permanent staff1

  Casual staff

  1979

  52½

  —

  1986

  51

  —

  1987

  51

  —

  1988

  51

  1

  1989

  52

  3

  1990

  48

  5

  1 These figures do not include Commissioners.

  (b) No staff are employed by the Commission outwith Inverness. However the Commission is able to call upon the services of professional staff from the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department area offices throughout the crofting counties in respect of crofting schemes and regulatory matters.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total cost to the Exchequer of the Crofters Commission in each of the past five years.
  116
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total expenditure of the Crofters Commission

  Financial year

  £'000s

  1986–87

  1154

  1987–88

  752

  1988–89

  849

  1989–90

  936

  1990–91

  21,080

  1 Comparable figures are not available for this year as the costs of the permanent staff were until then incorporated in the overall Scottish Office staffing expenditure.

  2 Forecast outtum.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the crofting estates owned by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland with, in each case, the number of tenants, the acreage of inbye land and the acreage of common grazing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information relating to crofting estates belonging to the Secretary of State is set out in the table. The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department does not hold separately information relating to the acreage of inbye land or common grazing. The total hectarage figures given, however, includes both inbye land and common grazing.

  The Secretary of State's crofting estates as at 31 December 1990

  Area and estate

  Crofting lets1

  Other agricultural

  Total hectarage

  ARGYLL:

  Kinlochlaich

  5

  —

  1,500

  Sunart

  38

  1

  2,548

  Morven-Bonnavoulin

  1

  —

  29

  Isle of Mull

  Glenforsa2

  —

  2

  4,789

  Isle of Islay

  Whitehart Parks

  8

  —

  264

  Mull of Kintyre

  Killeonan

  1

  —

  9

  Moy

  3

  —

  64

  Totals

  56

  3

  9,203

  INVERNESS (Mainland)

  Mains of Arderseir

  1

  —

  4

  Inshes

  2

  —

  30

  Milton of Culloden

  1

  —

  6

  Woodside of Culloder

  l

  1

  6

  Beolary

  6

  —

  972

  Tomich

  8

  1

  120

  Scallasaig

  10

  —

  1,985

  Total

  29

  2

  3,123

  ROSS AND CROMARTY:

  Arabella

  2

  —

  73

  Balnabeen

  5

  —

  73

  Corntown

  5

  —

  98

  Culcairn

  1

  —

  53

  Dounie

  2

  —

  56

  Geanies

  2

  —

  63

  Kinkell

  2

  —

  58

  Raddery

  2

  1

  77

  Seafield

  3

  —

  30

  Totals

  24

  1

  581

  117

  Area and estate

  Crofting lets1

  Other agricultural lets

  Total hectarage

  CAITHNESS:

  Dunn and Scarmclate

  11

  —

  584

  Forss

  7

  1

  605

  Hoy and Braal

  2

  —

  100

  Lochend

  2

  —

  223

  Lybster

  1

  —

  132

  Stempster

  2

  —

  67

  West Murkle

  1

  —

  23

  West Watten

  2

  —

  88

  Totals

  28

  1

  1,822

  SUTHERLAND:

  Armadale

  95

  2

  4,735

  Borgie

  9

  —

  4,958

  Keoldale

  43

  —

  11,032

  Syre

  20

  —

  4,736

  Totals

  167

  2

  25,461

  Inverness (SKYE AND RAASAY)

  SKYE:

  Bracadale

  166

  8

  19,697

  Claigan

  4

  —

  1,480

  Kilbride

  10

  —

  3,451

  Kilmuir

  373

  —

  19,120

  Kingsburgh

  27

  —

  5,334

  Scorrybreck

  16

  —

  4,003

  RAASAY:

  Raasay

  33

  2

  6,731

  Totals

  629

  10

  59,816

  INVERNESS (WESTERN ISLES)

  HARRIS:

  Scaristavor

  10

  1

  1,240

  Luskentyre

  10

  —

  2,397

  Borve

  32

  —

  3,014

  NORTH UIST:

  Balelone/Balmartin

  5

  6,555

  Balranald

  49

  Newton

  49

  7

  BENBECULA:

  Benbecula

  76

  2

  1,045

  BARRA:

  Barra

  56

  1

  1,143

  Eoligarry

  66

  1

  1,324

  VATERSAY:

  Vatersay

  43

  1

  1,362

  Totals

  396

  13

  18,080

  NORTHERN ISLES

  ORKNEY:

  Stove

  4

  —

  247

  SHETLAND:

  Cliff

  24

  —

  312

  Fetlar

  6

  —

  71

  Ordale

  11

  1

  807

  Westafirth

  13

  —

  971

  Totals

  58

  1

  2,408

  Grand Total

  1,387

  33

  120,494

  1 The number of "crofting lets" may differ slightly from the number of "tenants" because of some multiple tenancies.

  2 Leasehold subject.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information on the pollution of drinking water in Scotland, including levels of aluminium and other toxic substances, his Department is gathering.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Records are maintained of the quality classification of drinking water supply sources and of those supply zones where water does not currently meet the quality standards set in the EC drinking water directive and the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990.

  Where a standard is persistently infringed, a water authority may in certain circumstances apply for authorisation of a relaxation, but otherwise must submit an undertaking to make a necessary quality improvement within a specified time. There are separate arrangements for reporting specific pollution incidents or other significant water quality failures. No water supply zones have been notified as failing to meet the standards for any toxic substance. For lead arising from plumbing systems, water authorities are due to report by the end of this year on any zones where there is a risk that tap water will not meet the new lead standard, stricter than that of the EC directive, set in the water quality regulations.

  The standard for aluminium, not classed as a toxic substance in the EC directive, may be relaxed if the aluminium is of natural origin. My answer to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 4 March 1991, column 65–66, gave details of maximum authorised levels of aluminium in such cases.

  Other substances such as nitrates and pesticides are the subject of specific inquiries to water authorities from time to time.

  Annual reports to be published by water authorities by 30 June 1991 will provide information and data on water quality standards in all supply zones.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total spending on education in Scotland as a percentage of Scottish gross domestic product in real terms in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Public expenditure on education includes expenditure both by the Secretary of State directly and by education authorities. Details are as follows:

  Expenditure by Secretary of Stateand education authorities inreal terms at 1989–90 prices (£ million)2,090

  Expenditure as a percentage of the Scottish GDP

  1977–78

  2,090

  7·06

  1978–79

  2,107

  7·06

  1979–80

  2,071

  7·11

  1980–81

  2,159

  7·67

  1981–82

  2,214

  7·80

  1982–83

  2,366

  8·16

  1983–84

  2,367

  7·93

  1984–85

  2,318

  7·74

  1985–86

  2,293

  7·37

  1986–87

  2,379

  7·24

  1987–88

  2,450

  7·28

  1988–89

  2,475

  7·04

  1989–90

  2,544

  7·12

  119
  Note: 1989–90=estimated outturn.

  Sources: A Commentary on the Scottish Programme The Scottish Office Departmental Report Scottish Economic Bulletin

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on(a) nursery, (b) primary and (c) secondary education by local authorities in Scotland in 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is given in the table, which has been compiled from local authority financial returns.

  Net current expenditure on nursery, primary and secondary schools 1989–90

  £ million

  Nursery

  39·658

  Primary

  605·294

  Secondary

  751·602

  Feu Redemption
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has concerning the current average cost of feu redemption; and whether he has any plans to abolish such a charge;

  (2) if he has any plans to review the law on feu redemption.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information about costs of feu duty redemption is not held centrally. Before considering whether any legislation on this question is desirable, my right hon. Friend proposes to await the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission on completion of its current major review of property law in Scotland.

  Housing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Scottish Homes board to discuss progress being made in the proposed disposal of former Scottish Special Housing Association houses in the Borders region in terms of the voluntary disposal procedures in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether, in the event of the disposal of the former SSHA houses in the Borders region being rejected in whole or in part, by a majority of the tenants or by himself, he would require to give his consent to any proposed agents to factor any properties remaining in the possession of Scottish Homes;

  (2) if he will allow local authorities to be considered as appropriate bodies to compete to act as agents of Scottish Homes in any future factoring arrangements on expiry of exisiting contractual arrangements of Scottish Homes properties in the Borders region;

  (3) what instructions he will give to Scottish Homes in terms of future factoring arrangements for former SSHA housing stock in the Borders region;

  (4) if he will make a statement on how he intends to exercise his powers in section 3A of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, relative to his consent being required for Scottish Homes appointing other persons to act as its agents.
  120
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In terms of Scottish Homes (Powers) General Authority 1989, a general authority given by my right hon. Friend in terms of section 2(3)(a) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, Scottish Homes may appoint such agents as it considers necessary, on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit and reasonable. The general authority does not, however, authorise Scottish Homes to appoint agents to manage houses where the cost of doing so is greater than if Scottish Homes managed those houses without an agent.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 142, if he will publish the revised timetable for the proposed disposal of former SSHA housing stock in the Borders region including the time for Scottish Homes to process proposals to purchase stock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has asked Scottish Homes to publish the proposed timetable and expects it to do so during May.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now reconsider his policy of proscribing tenants choice of landlord in relation to the public sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to amend the relevant legislation.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 144, if he will now publish the safeguards he will insist upon as a condition of his consent to a voluntary transfer of housing stock under the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 in protecting the interests of tenants against any private sector or voluntary sector landlord who is subsequently made bankrupt or goes into liquidation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to my reply of 5 March.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether multi-option ballots are to be allowed to be put to tenants under the voluntary disposals of former SSHA housing stock in the Borders region in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the guidance which my right hon. Friend has given to Scottish Homes there is nothing which prevents the agency from putting forward two or more options to the ballot stage for consideration by tenants. I understand that it remains Scottish Homes' intention, however, that at each ballot only one proposal for change will be put to the tenants.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to publish details of the burdens and other heritable conditions to be determined by Scottish Homes which are to be inserted in the title deeds of the heritable properties to be disposed of under the voluntary disposals of former Scottish Special Housing Association housing stock in the Borders region in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988; what specific heritable conditions will be imposed to protect and safeguard future tenants; and what powers he has to vary any such conditions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As stated in my reply of 5 March, these properties are owned by Scottish Homes
  121
  and which, if any, burdens or other heritable conditions are imposed on the stock to be transferred is a matter for the agency.

  My right hon. Friend has no powers to vary any such conditions, although he may take these into account in the giving or withholding of his consent to any disposal.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 144, regarding the valuation system to be adopted in any large-scale voluntary transfer of housing stock, what procedures are to be put in place to decide what condition the stock is in and who will arbitrate in the event of a dispute about the valuation of the necessary remedial work.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In terms of Scottish Homes' published procedures, the agency itself will undertake a current survey of the properties so that the condition can be established. As stated in my answer of 5 March, the district valuer will be invited to assess the market value of the stock. This valuation will be on the basis of open market value subject to existing tenancies with account being taken of the condition of the stock. Negotiations on the offers made by prospective landlords will be a matter for Scottish Homes.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what power he has to ensure that former SSHA tenants, currently holding tenancies with Scottish Homes, will continue to be the subject to affordable levels of rent in the event of being transferred to another private or voluntary sector landlord under the voluntary disposal of stock provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The basis for determin-ing future rents will form part of the overall proposal which will be put to tenants in the ballot which will precede the approval of any such disposal. Future rental increases will be determined by the provisions of the tenancy agreement and in the case of dispute will be subject to the arrangements for rental increases under assured tenancies under the provisions of sections 24 and 25 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. These provisions allow the tenant to refer the prescribed notice of increase in rent to the rent assessment committee for determination.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of financial support he expects to pay to private sector landlords acquiring former SSHA housing stock in the Borders region in terms of the voluntary disposal provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988; and what financial support will be provided to cover elements of any management costs involved in making the successful bid to purchase.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes would be responsible for the consideration and payment of any request for financial support from a private sector landlord. It would be for the agency to consider, in the first instance, the elements of costs which might be assisted. In terms of section 3(a) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, any proposal by Scottish Homes to provide financial support would require the approval of my right hon. Friend given with the consent of Treasury. Before granting that approval, he would wish to be assured that the assistance would be in accordance with his and Scottish 122
  Homes' policy objectives and would provide value for the public funds involved, relative to the competing demands for those funds.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that any tenants of Scottish Homes who do not wish to transfer to the private sector, in terms of the voluntary disposal of former SSHA houses in Borders region under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 will be permitted to remain as tenants of Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. However, my right hon. Friend will withhold his consent to any disposal if he is not satisfied that the interests of tenants have been fully protected and he will give his consent only if a majority of those replying to the ballot are in favour of the proposal put to them.

  In the guidance which he issued to Scottish Homes in February 1991, my right hon. Friend asked Scottish Homes to ensure that tenants are advised of their rights and of all the opportunities available to them, as soon as possible after Scottish Homes' initial clearance of any case put to it for disposal. He will wish to ensure that advice has been given to tenants before giving his consent.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the mobile breast cancer screening programme to be fully operational; and what is the total budget allowed for the programme in 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The programme will be fully operational by August and the total budget for 1991–92 is £3.346 million.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to advertise and publicise the mobile breast cancer screening units which are currently operational in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The arrangements for advertising and publicity are made by the health boards in consultation with the screening units. Publicity will be given prior to a visit by a screening unit to a local area and can take the form of a local or national press notice, local radio and television. In addition promotional seminars for the primary health care teams are held by the screening unit about one month in advance of a scheduled visit.

  Information leaflets about the breast screening service in Scotland have been placed in all GP surgeries, in community centres and libraries.

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the problems of eider duck and golden-eye duck devouring substantial quantities of young mussels and other products on fish and shellfish farms.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Consumption of young shellfish by eider ducks or golden-eye ducks is known to occur at some shellfish farms. Licences can be issued by my right hon. Friend, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to shoot protected birds where that is necessary to prevent serious damage. So far no application for a licence to shoot these or other species of protected bird has been made in respect of a marine shellfish or fish farm.
  123
  Advice on non-lethal methods of deterring predation by these ducks at shellfish farms is being prepared by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland in conjuction with the Association of Shelfish Growers and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. This advice will take account of the findings on such predation carried out by Aberdeen university department of zoology and commissioned by the HIDB and the Scottish Office.

  Vacation Hardship Allowance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much was paid out in vacation hardship allowance in 1989–90 in Scotland;

  (2) how many students received vacation hardship allowance in 1989–90 in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of £3,860·60 was paid in vacation hardship allowances to 14 students during academic session 1989–90.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the unemployment rate in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In February 1991, the Scottish seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 8·2 per cent. of the work force.

  Property Development
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now relax the rules about the Scottish Enterprise or local enterprise companies only being property developers of last resort.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  No. The right approach is to promote and, where appropriate, assist private sector develolpment and the normal functioning of the industrial property market in Scotland. There is no case for the use of public money to finance property development in cases where the private sector would be prepared to make the necessary provision.

  Temporary Sheriffs
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current daily rate paid to a temporary sheriff sitting in the sheriff court in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The current daily rate effective from 1 April 1991 is £212.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many temporary sheriffs were employed in the Scottish courts for more than 80 per cent. of the available court sitting days in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table:

  Reports published

  Session

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary-independent

  Special

  College

  Community

  Total

  1983–84

  4

  112

  23

  6

  3

  3

  151

  1984–85

  7

  118

  21

  9

  1

  2

  158

  1985–86

  9

  112

  24

  11

  4

  2

  162

  1986–87

  11

  116

  26

  6

  2

  2

  163

  1987–88

  10

  113

  23

  4

  4

  3

  157

  124

  Year

  1988

  0

  1989

  0

  1990

  3

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many temporary sheriffs hold commission to serve in sheriff courts in Scotland; how many sessions were put in by temporary sheriff courts for the latest period for which figures are available in Scotland; and what was the cost to his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  Ninety-three temporary sheriffs currently hold a commission to serve. Between 1 March 1990 and 28 February 1991, temporary sheriffs sat on 4,300 occasions at a cost of approximately £1,100,000.

  Primary Schools (National Testing)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received on national testing in primary schools; and how many were for his proposals and how many against.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  To date 1,100 representations have been received covering a complete spectrum of views on testing.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the intended and actual frequencies of inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools in Scotland for(a) nursery schools, (b) primary schools, (c) secondary schools, (d) further education colleges, (e) centrally-funded institutions, (f) community education services and (g) other services;

  (2) how the frequency of inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors has altered for various categories of educational institution since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: Each year a management plan for Her Majesty's inspectorate is agreed with the Secretary of State. This establishes a programme of inspections which will provide the necessary information on an agreed range of issues from a balanced sample of schools. The inspections vary in nature, from full inspections which examine all aspects of the work of an institution and lead to a published report on the institution, to more limited selective inspections which focus on a particular issue and may contribute to a published or an internal report. The configuration of the inspection programme therefore varies in accordance with the issues under investigation.

  Publication of reports on full inspections began in 1983 and the numbers of reports on institutions published since then are as follows:
  125

  Reports published

  Session

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary-independent

  Special

  College

  Community

  Total

  1988–89

  9

  82

  20

  6

  2

  2

  125

  1989–90

  6

  69

  18

  4

  2

  1

  100

  The reduction in the number of full inspections in 1988–89 and 1989–90 was to accommodate an increase in surveys of aspects of education and other priority work undertaken by the inspectorate. There has been a corresponding increase in the rate of publication of aspect reports in recent years. In 1988–89 16 of these were published, and 22 in 1989–90, compared to an average of six per session in earlier years.

  Bathing Water
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the amounts of loans received from the European investment bank in each of the past three years which were used for the improvement of river and bathing water quality.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: No loans from the European investment bank for this purpose were received in Scotland during 1988 to 1990.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the anticipated income for each local authority in Scotland for 1991–92 from(a) aggregate external finance and (b) community charges.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: The figures are shown in the table.

  Aggregate External Finance £000

  Total CC Income £000

  Borders

  79,835

  17,667

  Central

  182,112

  54,602

  Dumfries & Galloway

  112,446

  26,385

  Fife

  240,865

  75,373

  Grampian

  346,160

  83,647

  Highland

  184,082

  36,917

  Lothian

  479,248

  212,866

  Strathclyde

  1,693,546

  434,203

  Tayside

  280,835

  81,108

  Berwickshire

  1,484

  555

  Ettrick & Lauderdale

  2,789

  1,318

  Roxburgh

  3,121

  1,311

  Tweeddale

  1,226

  516

  Clackmannan

  5,122

  3,758

  Falkirk

  13,365

  4,988

  Stirling

  9,703

  6,198

  Annandale & Eskdale

  2,530

  1,919

  Nithsdale

  4,339

  2,846

  Stewartry

  1,605

  925

  Wigtown

  2,554

  1,422

  Dunfermline

  11,592

  6,915

  Kirkcaldy

  12,336

  8,162

  North East Fife

  6,399

  4,214

  Aberdeen City

  26,209

  16,940

  Banff & Buchan

  7,183

  4,045

  Gordon

  6,039

  2,734

  Kincardine & Deeside

  3,766

  1,184

  Moray

  7,159

  2,669

  Badenoch & Strathspey

  938

  368

  126

  Aggregate External Finance £000

  Total CC Income £000

  Caithness

  2,338

  659

  Inverness

  5,022

  1,507

  Lochaber

  2,224

  943

  Nairn

  796

  279

  Ross & Cromarty

  5,761

  2,148

  Skye & Lochalsh

  1,684

  405

  Sutherland

  1,470

  506

  East Lothian

  8,810

  5,384

  Edinburgh City

  59,443

  41,209

  Midlothian

  7,157

  4,474

  West Lothian

  12,961

  5,901

  Argyll & Bute

  10,224

  4,831

  Bearsden & Milngavie

  3,497

  2,366

  Clydebank

  6,891

  3,993

  Clydesdale

  5,694

  3,944

  Cumbernauld & Kilsyth

  5,204

  2,795

  Cumnock & Doon Valley

  4,197

  2,130

  Cunninghame

  14,601

  10,456

  Dumbarton

  7,423

  7,723

  East Kilbride

  5,637

  6,735

  Eastwood

  4,272

  2,070

  Glasgow City

  135,736

  54,606

  Hamilton

  10,545

  7,424

  Inverclyde

  10,830

  5,585

  Kilmarnock & Loudoun

  7,232

  4,458

  Kyle & Carrick

  10,697

  9,700

  Monklands

  12,887

  7,440

  Motherwell

  16,041

  8,011

  Renfrew

  22,061

  15,857

  Strathkelvin

  8,797

  6,142

  Angus

  8,069

  3,842

  Dundee City

  23,459

  12,316

  Perth & Kinross

  11,913

  5,725

  Orkney

  24,566

  2,027

  Shetland

  54,719

  2,399

  Western Isles

  53,017

  3,624

  Footnotes

  1. The Community charge income figures shown are local authorities' own budgeted estimates for 1991–92 of community charge receipts from personal, collective and standard charges, inclusive of community charge benefits and receipts from the transitional relief and community charge reduction schemes. They accordingly reflect the position before the decision to increase the level of central government support for local authorities and to reduce all 1991–92 personal community charges by £140.

  2. Aggregate External Finance includes revenue support grant, estimated non-domestic rate income and estimated specific grants for each authority. An additional £47·2 million of specific grant relating to the urban programme expenditure has not yet been allocated to individual authorities.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were(a) gross local authority revenue expenditure, (b) net local authority revenue expenditure, (c) rate support grant/revenue support grant, (d) local authority income from non-domestic rates and (e) local authority income from domestic rates/community charges at constant prices for each year from 1978–79 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: The information is set out in the table:
  127

  (1) Gross revenue expenditure £million

  (2) Net revenue expenditure £ million

  (3) RSG £ million

  (4) Non-domestic rate income

  (5) Domestic rates/ Community charge income £ million

  1978–79

  4,692·9

  4,309·5

  2,625·4

  974·0

  520·7

  1979–80

  4,921·4

  4,532·9

  2,583·3

  989·6

  523·5

  1980·81

  5,111·5

  4,771·9

  2,651·2

  1,134·8

  607·5

  1981–82

  5,218·3

  4,835·1

  2,519·9

  1,391·2

  768·0

  1982–83

  5,273·8

  4,875·9

  2,540·7

  1,445·9

  816·1

  1983·84

  5,323·8

  4,908·1

  2,555·0

  1,3874·1

  772·2

  1984–85

  5,299·6

  4,869·5

  2,364·7

  1,373·2

  784·4

  1985–86

  5,184·7

  4,756·9

  2,278·7

  1,372·5

  853·5

  1986–87

  53,16·0

  4,881·5

  2,148·5

  1,437·5

  911·2

  1987–88

  5,394·8

  4,943·2

  2,212·3

  1,524·5

  991·3

  1988–89

  5,469·5

  4,961·3

  2,289·7

  1,510·5

  994·6

  1989–90

  n/a

  5,021·4

  2,414·7

  1,313·5

  1,059·2

  1990–91

  n/a

  5,131·9

  2,495·3

  1,189·0

  1,062·1

  1991–92

  n/a

  5,243·6

  2,615·5

  12,98·1

  1,266·8

  Notes:

  1. Gross revenue expenditure figures are only obtained from local authorities in Local Financial Returns (LFRS). The LFR is for 1988–89

  2. The figures in column 2 are taken from LFRS to 1988–89, Final Outturn returns for 1989–90, Provisional Outturn returns for 1990–91 and Budget Estimate returns for 1991–92.

  3. In column 3 the figures represent the redetermined amounts of rate and revenue support grant where appropriate.

  4. The figures in column 4 are Final Outturn to 1988–89. For 1989–90 to 1991–92 the figures represent the Non-Domestic Rate Income estimated by the Department as part of AEF.

  5. In column 5 the figures are Final Outturn to 1988–89 and Provisional Outturn for 1990–91. The 1991–92 figure shown is the total of loca authorities' own budgeted estimates. It reflects the position before the decision to increase the level of central government support for loca: authorities and to reduce all 1991–92 personal community charges by £140.

  6. All figures have been converted to real terms by means of the Treasury GDP deflator (March 1991). All years are at 1990–91.

  Mr. McAnion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the anticipated net local authority revenue expenditure and gross local authority revenue expenditure for 1991–92 for(a) all regional council services, (b) education, (c) police and fire services, (d) social work, (e) roads and transport, (f) loan charges attributable to regional services, (g) all district council services, (h) leisure and recreation services, (i) loan

  Column 1 Revenue expenditure £ million

  Column 2 Loan and leasing charges £ million

  Total columns 1 and 2 £ million

  (a) All regional services

  4,117·7

  474·7

  4,592·4

  (b) Education1

  2,278·8

  167·5

  2,446·4

  (c) Police and Fire services1

  598·4

  30·2

  628·6

  (d) Social Work1

  631·2

  39·9

  671·1

  (e) Roads and Transport1

  393·0

  193·6

  586·5

  (f) Loan Charges (Regions)

  —

  474·7

  —

  (g) All district services

  691·4

  188·1

  879·5

  (h) Leisure and Recreation2

  254·4

  55·2

  309·6

  (i) Non-housing district loan charges

  —

  188·1

  —

  (j) Cleansing services3

  164·8

  16·4

  181·2

  (k) Libraries and Museums and Art Galleries 2 4

  93·8

  13·0

  106·8

  (l) Environmental Health services2

  50·5

  3·2

  53·8

  1 Figures include Regional and Island authority expenditure.

  2 Figures include Regional, Island and District authority expenditure.

  3 Figures include Island and District authority expenditure.

  4 Figures include expenditure on Art Galleries as well as Museums as separate figures for these two services.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total investment in manufacturing industry in Scotland in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: The table shows estimates of capital investment in terms of net capital expenditure for manufacturing industry in Scotland between 1974 and 1988, the latest year for which figures are available.
  128
  charges attributable to district council non-housing services, (j) cleansing services, (k) libraries and museums and (l) environmental health services.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: The only information at present available to my Department in relation to expenditure in 1991–92 is based on local authorities' budget estimate returns. These show that authorities plan expenditure on services supported by aggregate external finance and personal, collective and standard community charges as follows:

  Scottish net capital expenditure for manufacturing industry

  Net capital expenditure £ million current prices

  Year

  Orders III to XIX SIC 1980

  Divs 2–4 SIC 1980

  1974

  310

  —

  1975

  426

  —

  1976

  465

  —

  1977

  493

  —

  1978

  551

  —

  1979

  597

  589

  129

  Net capital expenditure £ million current prices

  Year

  Orders III to XIX SIC 1968

  Divs 2–4 SIC 1980

  1980

  —

  654

  1981

  —

  617

  1982

  —

  542

  1983

  —

  491

  1984

  —

  623

  1985

  —

  866

  1986

  —

  777

  1987

  —

  736

  1988

  —

  1,026

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

  Note: From 1988 contributors to the Annual Census of Production were asked to include as capital expenditure the value of assets acquired under financial leasing arrangements.

  Industry (Fixed Capital)
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the gross domestic fixed capital formation for(a) all industries and (b) manufacturing industry in Scotland in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: The information requested is given in the table, covering 1978 to 1988, the latest years for which data are available.

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation in Scotland for (a) all industries covered1 and (b) manufacturing industry

  Year

  All industries covered1

  GDFCF (£ million current prices) Manufacturing industry

  1978

  2,072

  523

  1979

  2,327

  562

  1980

  2,668

  645

  1981

  2,575

  586

  1982

  2,621

  541

  1983

  2,661

  470

  1984

  2,852

  597

  1985

  3,130

  862

  1986

  3,079

  789

  Local authority expenditure in Scotlandon functions outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Pay

  15

  17

  18

  22

  22

  48

  Other current expenditure on goods and services

  10

  11

  13

  14

  14

  Current grants to persons

  285

  335

  386

  400

  456

  528

  Net capital expenditure on assets

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  TOTAL

  313

  364

  419

  438

  493

  577

  130

  Year

  All industries covered1

  GDFCF (£ million current prices) Manufacturing industry

  1987

  3,034

  738

  1988

  3,573

  951

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  1 The industries covered are Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Energy and Water Supply, Manufacturing, Transport and Communications (excluding air and sea transport) and Dwellings.

  Notes:

  (1) Figures exclude leased assets and investment in land and existing buildings.

  (2) Figures after 1979 are not entirely consistent with those for earlier years. However, differences are thought to be small.

  Carstairs Hospital
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients at the state hospital at Carstairs no longer require to be kept in secure wards and could be returned to semi-secure wards at local hospitals if they existed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 March 1991]: Where patients are suitable for transfer, arrangements will be made for this to take place.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an analysis, comparable with table 5·7 of Cm. 1520, showing that local authority expenditure in Scotland which falls outside expenditure within his own responsibility

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested, consistent with that given in the statistical supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement (Cm. 1520), is given in the following table.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Algeciras-Gibraltar: Shipping Services
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Spanish Government in discharge of their duties as a member of the European Community have now authorised the resumption of the shipping services between Algeciras and Gibraltar.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, what excuse have the Spanish Government given for this plain breach of their obligations as a member of the Community? What action will the Government take to enforce those obligations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has written to the European Commissioner on the matter. The reason given by the Spanish Government for refusing to agree to the renewal of the ferry service is that in their mind they have linked it to the question of the airport.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this is a long standing dispute and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has asked a number of questions about it without receiving a satisfactory reply. Does the noble Earl agree that the time has come for a meeting between his right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister? Are there any plans for a meeting with the European Community Foreign Ministers in order to make a strenuous attempt to resolve the problem?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition thinks that my answers have been inadequate. They have been entirely factual and as full as I can make them. We are in regular contact with the Spanish. There are regular meetings at all levels, including that between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his counterpart in Spain. As I have previously indicated, this matter was on a recent agenda. We shall continue to press for a solution of it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not open to the Government to take enforcement proceedings in the Luxembourg court to enforce the performance of their duties by the Spanish Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we believe that in the interests of everyone in the Community this matter should be settled as soon as possible. We believe that the Spanish refusal is counter to the thrust of the international market and common transport policy. That is why we have taken the action that we have taken.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I was in Spain earlier in the year. There were then high hopes that these shipping services would be resumed. h the problem due to the failure of the Spanish Government to live up to their obligations or the failure of the British Government to exert sufficient pressure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is the Spanish Government who have refused to allow the Spanish company to operate the ferry service.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, what arguments have the Government put forward to refute the interpretation of the Director-General for Transport on the directive establishing freedom of maritime services? Am I not right in believing that Her Majesty's Government sought legal opinion on this interpretation? What was the outcome of that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have sought all kinds of opinions, legal and otherwise. We believe that the best way to solve the matter is the method that we have undertaken.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether his answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was yes or no, because I was not quite clear about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my answer was that the best way of proceeding is the way that we have undertaken.

Pornographic Advertisements
2.40 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the increase of advertisements of an explicit pornographic nature which are appearing in many provincial and one or two national newspapers, they will take steps to ban all questionable advertisements requiring readers to telephone phone numbers with the code 0898 or similar ones should these subsequently appear.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the advertisements for all premium rate telephone services are already subject to controls. They must comply with the rules contained in the British Code of Advertising Practice which requires that all advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful and should not contain any matter that is likely to cause grave or widespread offence.
This code is incorporated into the codes of practice for premium rate telephone services which are administered by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Telephone Information Services

1251
(ICSTIS). ICSTIS announced in March that it intends revising the codes of practice to implement stricter controls on the advertising of such telephone services.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. However, I am not really surprised that he could not quite keep a straight face while giving it. I wonder whether the Minister or any other noble Lord had heard before of the organisation which is commonly known as ICSTIS. If they had not, how would they expect the general public to have heard of it and to contact it? Is the Minister aware that if someone phones one of these 0898 telephone numbers he is first told at great length about keeping within the law and is quoted the requirements that the Minister just mentioned? This makes the time taken on the telephone even longer—in other words, these services are making a mockery of the law. What do the Government intend to do about it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, noble Lords will discover under the consumer advice section at the back of their telephone book the address and telephone number of Oftel and ICSTIS. It is pointed out that a free complaints line operating 24 hours a day will take down the details of any complaint and transmit it to the ICSTIS secretariat. In 1990 approximately 350 services were either terminated or amended as a result of ICSTIS investigation of complaints.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, in addition to the pornographic element mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which has given rise to some concern, there is also growing concern at the ever-increasing political Right-wing bias which appears in many of our national and local newspapers, some of which material would do credit to the late unlamented Dr. Goebbels?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that if the noble Lord were to ring some of the telephone numbers which have been mentioned he would find that no political views would be expressed in the services.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend equate political bias with pornography?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I leave it to my noble friend to make a judgment on that matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether British Telecom intends to backdate to January the increase in VAT on pornographic calls as apparently it intends to do—although it may now have given up the idea—in regard to everyone else's calls?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is another Question.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that this kind of activity has very much increased since privatisation? Therefore, would it not
1252
be better if those in charge of the telephone services were to attempt to improve them rather than straying into these byways?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I should point out that ICSTIS has recently announced that it intends to revise the provisions of its code of practice so as to implement stricter controls on the advertising of premium-rate adult entertainment telephone services. That follows a review of the guidelines issued last summer to the industry which were intended to prevent the more offensive advertisements for recorded message services from appearing in publications which are widely available to all age groups. We expect the new guidelines to be published within a matter of weeks.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if all advertisements were really legal, decent, honest and truthful, can the noble Viscount say what effect that would have on the advertising revenue of the newspapers?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, once again, I must point out that that is another Question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, are the Government in a position to do anything about pornographic advertisements, bearing in mind that Mr. Rupert Murdoch and the Sun newspaper are the greatest supporters of the Conservative Party?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, advertising is a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority. The control of advertising, which is administered by the authority, is based upon the code of practice, which is well known.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I appreciate that we have thus far spent nearly 10 minutes on Questions, but perhaps I may ask the Minister one further question. Is he aware of the publication which appears every Sunday entitled the Sunday Sport? I have with me one full page of its advertising, but the content of the advertisements is so crude that, unfortunately, I am unable to repeat it to your Lordships.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I have said, ICSTIS will shortly be announcing new guidelines. I think it may be helpful if I point out that some of the proposed guidelines will certainly cover some of the points made by the noble Earl.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that some of us find this Astor-Attlee pornographic exchange most fascinating? Is he further aware that, had his grandmother asked such a question of the noble Earl's father—which she might well have done—she would probably have received an even more succinct Answer than that which the noble Viscount has been able to give today?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his comments.

Kurdish Refugees
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to alleviate the plight of the Kurdish population in Iraq.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are deeply concerned about the situation of the Kurdish and other refugees in Iraq. There have been two elements to our response: first, we have acted to meet the refugees' humanitarian needs; and, secondly, we are acting to stop Iraq's repression of its own population and to protect the refugees through the initiative of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, in the light of the sheer magnitude of the suffering experienced by the Kurdish refugees on the two frontiers, can the noble Earl tell us how much British aid is reaching those refugees? Further, can he say whether the British Government have conferred with representatives from the Turkish and Iranian Governments, and whether they have any views on how the refugee operation should be conducted?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has pledged about £20 million as our response to the UN Secretary General's appeal. That is in addition to our continuing aid programme which has been operating. Since 8th April three RAF Hercules aircraft have flown 16 missions, and dropped 121 tonnes of supplies to the refugees on the Turkish-Iraqi border.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us on this side of the House think that the contribution made by the Prime Minister is outstanding? His proposals are indeed outstanding; and it is a great shame that they are not backed up by many more people instead of them just talking about it. Further, can the noble Earl tell the House why Saddam Hussein, who is a villain and a murderer, should be allowed to continue in this way and thereby destroy other people's lives? We do not seem to be doing anything about it. Can he tell us how such a situation is possible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the first point, I am grateful for what the noble Lord said. Secondly, I disagree with the suggestion that there has hardly been a murmur. There has been a positive hurricane of response.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Prime Minister has made a proposal for a safe haven, with which I am sure we all sympathise. Can the noble Earl tell the House where the proposal stands at the moment? Is it possible that it may go before the Security Council and receive the support of the international community so that something practical may emerge? Secondly, will the noble Earl confirm that economic and other sanctions will continue in
1254
force until the Kurdish and Shi'ite problem has been resolved? That is, we hope, until Saddam Hussein has been removed.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the initiative of my right honourable friend had four elements. The provision of humanitarian relief to those in need; the establishment of safe havens—I stress that in the plural—under United Nations protection for refugees in Northern Iraq; the economic sanctions to remain in place until the present policies and practices of the Iraqi Government have changed; and the monitoring of arms sales and the establishment of a United Nations register.
Thus your Lordships will see that the United Nations is heavily involved in the matter. The present state of our discussions with the Americans, the French, the Germans and the other members of the United Nations Security Council is well advanced. The United Nations Secretary General has sent a special representative, the Belgian Mr. Suy. His Royal Highness Prince Sadruddin is also in Iraq coordinating the relief agencies.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the establishment of these safe havens presuppose armed protection under the sanction of the United Nations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that will depend very much on how Iraq reacts to the situation. We hope that the Iraqis will agree that humanitarian aid is needed rapidly in the area. The idea must be to get off the mountains those suffering horribly in extreme weather and get them down to areas where relief supplies can be distributed more quickly and effectively. If the Iraqis decide to react in any way against those humanitarian efforts, the response that they will receive has been made perfectly clear.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will we not have a Statement on the Kurdish question within an hour? Would it not therefore be more appropriate to leave further exchanges until then?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is up to the will of the House. I have been asked questions, and it is only right that the Government should respond.

Property Repossessions
2.53 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current level of repossessions of houses by the lending agencies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, figures released by the Council of Mortgage Lenders in February show that 43,890 dwellings were taken into possession during 1990, a figure representing 0.47 per cent. of all borrowers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she agree that the figure she has just given means that thousands of ordinary families are in despair? Is she aware that what irritates many people is that the cost to local

1255
authorities for rehousing those who have been more or less evicted after repossession of their homes is greater than if they were paid the interest on their mortgages? Perhaps saddest of all are those cases where people have been hit twice: first, where they have not been able to meet mortgage payments because the breadwinner is unemployed, and, secondly, for a minority, the grave danger that those people are being reduced to the ignoble and degrading status of being almost refugees in their own land.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything to detract from the distress of people unable to meet mortgage repayments, particularly when breadwinners lose their jobs. That is most distressing. However, I cannot sufficiently emphasise the importance of seeking advice early, through the many mechanisms in place, both local authorities and the lending agencies, to make sure that people are helped over this difficult period.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether the figure of 0.4 per cent. of all borrowers is the percentage of money involved or the percentage of mortgaged houses being repossessed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are 9.2 million borrowers altogether, of which 0.47 per cent. are in difficulties. If one takes all people in difficulties—that is, those in arrears up to six or 12 months, or whose property has been repossessed—the total is still only 1.5 per cent. of the 9.2 million borrowers.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the need for people who get into this unfortunate situation to seek the best possible advice. Is she aware that a campaign has recently been launched in the private sector to devote more funds to the provision of such advice? Presuming that the Government support that initiative, will they be prepared to put in additional resources?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are aware of the work going on in the private sector. My honourable friend in another place, Sir George Young, is involved in discussions on the issue with the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness add to the figures that she gave for the past 12 months? What were the comparable figures on repossessions for the previous 12 months? Further, what were the figures for the year 1979–80?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in 1989 mortgages totalled 9.125 million. In June 1990 the total was 9.278 million and in December 1990—the latest figure we have—9.415 million. Properties taken into care in 1989 totalled 0.17 per cent. and in June 1990, 0.18 per cent. As I said, the latest figure is 0.47 per cent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not immediate assistance necessary in order to reduce the distressing figures given by the Minister? He must be aware that Members on this side of the House welcome the Government's recent cut in the bank rate in order to
1256
reduce interest charges on mortgages. However, are the Government satisfied that their intention of reducing interest rates in the mortgage sector is being passed on to owner-occupiers by the building societies as quickly as it ought to be? It appears that some building societies are reluctant to reduce mortgages when the Government cut bank lending rates but when the bank rate rises mortgage rates are increased almost overnight.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord's criticism stands up. A few days ago, when the bank rate was reduced by a half per cent., within hours of the announcement many leading building societies had reduced mortgages by 1 per cent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, some of the largest building societies did not do so, and they gave no indication to people with mortgages when that reduction would be carried out. If some of the larger building societies appear to be dragging their feet will the Government deal with that under the appropriate legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, lending money to buy homes is a competitive business. It is up to people to change their mortgage from one company to another. That competition will have a downward pressure on interest rates.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we note the concern of the noble Baroness for these unfortunate people. However, is she aware that in addition to all the economics involved the people whose houses are repossessed have to move out? That is one of the greatest humiliations of their lives. They were trying to achieve one of the most fundamental of desires—to own their own home—and to be thrown out of it is a massive humiliation which affects the entire family.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot disagree with anything that the noble Lord said about how distressing it is. However, I keep returning to the importance of seeking early advice. People can negotiate with the lender in order to extend the period of the loan. Local authorities can check whether any help from the DSS is available and whether it is appropriate for people to receive such assistance. Local authorities can consider the possibility of purchasing a share in the equity of homes, which would be a cheaper option than rehousing such people. A great deal can be done and we hope that if people seek early advice it will be done.

Business
3 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the situation in Iraq.

Deer Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill consolidates the Deer Act 1963 and the Deer Act 1980. The 1963 Act has been extensively amended since its passage by a succession of other Acts. Furthermore, both it, and the 1980 Act, contain a number of drafting defects which can usefully be corrected on the recommendation of the Law Commission where the work of this consolidation has been carried out. Accordingly, this Bill is a consolidation with amendments to give effect to the Law Commission recommendations which are contained in the commission's report on this Bill. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the commission and the draftsman for their work in producing this consolidation. If your Lordships are content to give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
3.2 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Introduction of disability living allowance]:
[Amendment No. 1 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to paragraph (7) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I wish, with the leave of the House, to speak also to Amendment No. 3. This is a subject that we debated both in Committee and on Report but in a rather different context. Therefore we have retabled the amendment on Third Reading.
The amendment is related to remarks made by the Minister in response to a point that I made on Report on 25th March when I said:
"Currently claimants are denied both mobility and attendance allowance, even where they satisfy the terminal illness test, on account of the presence rule. It seems very harsh that that rule will be continued and will be applied to people claiming and othenvise entitled to benefits under the D.L.A. terminal illness rule".—[Official Report, 25/3/91; col. 863]
I pressed the Minister on that point later in the debate and he replied (at col. 865 of Hansard):
"My Lords, this is Report stage, but if the noble Lord will bear with me, I should like to come back on that point. If he wants to come back to this at a later stage, that may be appropriate but I prefer to write to the noble Lord".
I have not received a reply from the Minister. I am not criticising him for that; but I now have a chance to clear up the matter. Under the terminal illness rules the six-month waiting period that applies to all other
1258
parts of the DLA is waived so that a person who has been certified as terminally ill is able to receive benefit immediately. However, as the Bill presently stands, in order to receive the benefit, the person must have been in this country for at least six months out of the past year. Therefore the cruel and absurd situation could arise that a person who expects to die within six months is told that he or she has to wait six months before any benefit can be paid. That completely defeats the purpose of the terminal illness rules which are specially designed to ensure that people receive such help with the least possible hassle and delay.
The Association of Hospice Social Workers, which agrees with the thrust of the amendment, has written to me stating:
"The fact that Attendance Allowance can be paid within ten to fourteen days to someone terminally ill is a good breakthrough … We are however saddened by the fact that some of our patients still need to meet the presence criteria to be able to qualify for the allowance. We feel that the expenditure incurred in waiving the presence criteria in the UK would be minimal and may even result in some savings but would greatly enhance the spirit of the act".
The association refers to an example which I shall repeat to the House as it brings the situation home extremely well. The association referred to the case of Mr. "J" who is 38 years old. After being diagnosed as terminally ill, he returned to England in order to die within the loving care of his family. He returned to this country on 1st October 1990 and an application was submitted under the attendance allowance special rules. He was informed that the adjudicating officers' decision was that he did not meet the presence criteria until 1st April 1991.
For several months from October 1990 Mr. "J" was cared for by his family. If he had received attendance allowance and hence gained access to other benefits, his family members would have gained some respite. The situation on 10th April was that Mr. "J" was a hospital in-patient. He is dying. He does not qualify for the attendance allowance under the special rules. Had Mr. "J" or his family been able to enlist additional help through the receipt of the attendance allowance, access to other benefits would have been opened up, and his family may well have been able to provide care at home during his last few weeks.
The cost of the measure is minimal. The argument for adopting it is overwhelming and heart-rending. It is accepted in principle by the Government. I cannot believe that the Government will refuse to accept the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the reasons why the Government feel that the presence requirement should remain for the terminally ill, as they stated in Committee and on Report. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I hope I can deal with the points that the noble Lord has made. As the noble Lord pointed out, I promised to write to him on the matter. However, as the noble Lord tabled this amendment, I felt this would be a suitable opportunity to explain the Government's position.
In Committee I explained that DLA will adopt the attendance allowance presence requirement of 26

1259
weeks out of the preceding 12 months rather than the less generous requirement of 52 weeks out of 18 months which applies currently for mobility allowance. As I have explained before, the DLA regulations will also provide quite generous exemptions from the presence requirements by means of deeming people in certain situations to be present in Great Britain even though they are absent abroad. This will apply in particular where a person has gone abroad temporarily for medical treatment or the absence is for some other temporary purpose and has not lasted more than six months.
That demonstrates that we are always prepared to look closely and sympathetically at how to improve our arrangements. That applies to an issue like this one. I was not aware, until the noble Lord briefly raised the issue on Report, that there was, or might be, any problem in this area. Having taken the opportunity of the Recess to look further into the matter, I can say that the department is aware of only a handful of cases where the residence and presence rules have worked to the detriment of someone claiming under the special rules that we operate for people who are terminally ill.
The terminal illness rules are very new and it is perhaps dangerous to draw conclusions from just a few months' experience. What I should like to do, if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments, is to look further at the issue and the situations in which benefit is not being awarded. As I said on Report, we believe it is right in principle that DLA claimants should have to establish a real connection with this country before obtaining benefit. Nevertheless, if it appears that the residence and presence rules are operating unfairly in terminal illness cases, we shall certainly consider modifying them. I take note of the case that the noble Lord referred to concerning Mr. "J". If the noble Lord cares to supply me with the details of that case, or will allow me to read them in Hansard, I shall take a further look at the matter.
In asking the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments, I make one further point which I hope will persuade him that he can do so safely. If we reach the conclusion that a different residence and presence test is needed for terminally-ill people, it is something we can apply by means of regulations. The powers to prescribe different tests for different groups—if we wish to—are in the Bill already. I hope in view of that assurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. The Minister has answered the question that I was going to ask—that is, how do the Government propose to carry out this measure? If they are able to do so by regulations, I am sure that they will be able to draft such regulations accordingly. We are talking about only a handful of cases, as the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 41, after ("person") insert:
1260
(", except a child under the age of 16 who at the request of a paediatrician is accompanied or frequently visited by a parent or guardian who provides prolonged or repeated supervision or attention with his bodily functions while in hospital for medical treatment,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to amend the Bill to reflect an indication which was given on Report on 25th March by the Minister when he said:
"It is an issue at which I am prepared to have another look".—[Official Report; 25/3/91; col. 870.]
This is an opportunity for him to do so.
There is no need to repeat at any length the debate that we had at Report stage. However, in order to help your Lordships I shall remind the House that the amendment is modest in scope. It applies only to those parents who are already in receipt of attendance allowance and who continue to provide significant levels of care while their children are in hospital. The amendment suggests that it would be possible for that group of children to be defined by medical professionals, who could confirm that that was the case. No doubt the Secretary of State could prescribe regulations to ensure that that group of needy parents was properly defined.
The problem arises because parents in that situation fall foul of the regulation which restricts payments of attendance allowance where respite care is provided for a period over and above 28 days. The amendment does not seek to alter that condition but to separate hospital care from the regulations as the same considerations do not apply.
The parents to whom we refer are those who continue to provide care and attention to their children throughout the day, and indeed the night, while they are in hospital and who take over a number of the essential nursing tasks for their children. Thus this is a completely different situation from respite care, where the parents are relieved of the caring for a short period.
In an interview on the BBC's "News At One", Dr. Judith Kingston, a senior paediatrician, said:
"It does seem unfair that parents should lose attendance allowance when their children arc in hospital for a long time. We rely on parents looking after their children when they are in hospital, the mums contribute significantly to the nursing care of the child and there's a lot of expense—extra expense —involved when the child is in hospital".
Parents and children in such a situation face enough trauma without the burden of having their essential benefits reduced or taken away after the child has been in hospital for 28 days, especially when they continue to have the costs of travel to the hospital in addition to the other costs associated with having a disabled child.
I emphasise that the amendment does not propose any relaxation of the principle involved. It is targeted at those parents who continue to care for their children while they are in hospital. It is hedged around with qualifications to ensure that the general principle is not challenged. It applies to a small group of disabled children who are in hospital for medical care and whose parents continue to provide the bulk of that care.
At Report stage I gained the impression that the Government recognised the problem and were sympathetic. We have tried to meet the various points

1261
that were raised at Committee stage. As I said, the group is carefully targeted; it is small and the cost to the Government is minimal. I hope that the Minister will be able either to accept the amendment or to indicate that the Government at least understand the problem and are prepared to define this particular group, perhaps in regulations. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment. The main points have already been made and I should like merely to emphasise that this is a totally different situation from respite care. Very real expense is involved in going backwards and forwards to hospital to look after a child there. It has been made quite clear by the medical authorities that it is highly desirable that the parents should be there. That being so, the case for the amendment is extremely strong.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I too should like to support my noble friend and the noble Baroness who has just spoken. The amount of money involved will not be great because the numbers will not be great. A government who can find £30,000 a year for ex-Prime Ministers must surely see that when they go to the country for votes it will be far better to have given money to a worthy cause such as this. We have to get our priorities right. The sick, the needy and the poor, particularly children, have to be first in our thoughts if there is to be good government. This is an opportunity for the Government to look beneficent, kind and generous and I am sure that they will not turn the amendment down.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I also should like to support the principles behind the amendment. Very often disabled children are far more dependent on their parents than able-bodied children are, particularly if they have communication difficulties. In such cases it may be the parents alone who understand the children. As a result, in order to ensure that the child can make its needs known and answer questions from the specialists attending it in hospital, and to act as interpreters, such parents have to be present in hospital more than the parents of able-bodied children.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I too urge your Lordships to accept the amendment. We are not talking about the Government giving additional grants or allowances. We are merely seeking that the Government should not withdraw allowances which parents caring for disabled children or children with challenging behaviour currently receive. The point has been made and can bear repetition that these are children who are not only sick, requiring medical care in hospital from paediatricians, but whose behaviour, disability or disturbance is such that they require almost continuous day and night care in hospital from a parent or other member of their family. That is why, were the allowance to be removed and parents found themselves unable to attend to their children a heavy burden would be placed on nursing staff.
It is in recognition of the continuing care which parents of such children offer to their children while in hospital, which is not similar to that required by
1262
able-bodied children, that we hope that the Government will not withdraw the disability benefits which parents would otherwise continue to receive.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no intention of hiding behind the expense of the amendment. However, I must confess to being slightly surprised, after the assurances that I gave at Report stage and at Committee stage in response to similar amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that we should be debating the amendment today. Perhaps I was too discouraging then, but as I said, I did not want to raise false hopes by giving a cast-iron guarantee that we would act. That would have been wrong of me, and I should be wrong to accede to the noble Lord's request to bind the Government today to do something, especially when we cannot be sure exactly what that something should be.
I accept the need to examine the issue and to see whether we can meet the concern that has been raised. I understand that concern and have much sympathy with it, as I said on earlier occasions. As I said at Report stage, I acknowledge the effort that has been put into ring-fencing the small numbers of children with whom the noble Lord and others are concerned in this amendment. I am equally sure that the noble Lord recognises our concern, which I raised at Report stage, that our general policy should stand. I shall not reiterate those arguments.
As I have said, a fair case has been made out for the change. However, we must examine the issue in some depth. There is a great difference between being able to cite individual cases in which the existing law may seem to be too tough and finding a legislative solution which ensures that all the right people are helped without opening the door to others for whom we would not accept that that was the cane. I doubt that that will prove beyond us, but we must look closely at the issue before deciding what to do.
Perhaps it would reassure the noble Lord if I confirmed the indication that I gave at Report that that is something that we could achieve by regulation if the case for action is made. No amendment to the Bill is needed. I hope that, on the basis of that assurance—an assurance which I gave at Report stage —and my undertaking that we shall look closely at the issue in the department in consultation with the organisations which have raised the issue, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I stress, as I have on other occasions, that my door will remain open if the noble Lord wishes to come to see me on this matter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord is surprised that I should raise the matter. Perhaps I may remind him of what he said at Report stage. He said:
"I do not advocate the adoption of this amendment but it is an issue at which I am prepared to have another look. I should be happy to explore it further … I do not want to minimise the difficulties or raise any false hopes, but my understanding is that this is not an area in which we need primary legislation. Should it prove to be so there is anyway some time before this Bill has its Third Reading".—[Official Report, 25/3/91; col. 870.]

1263
Here we are at Third Reading and the intention of putting down the amendment was precisely to learn whether the matter can be dealt with by regulation. I am grateful that the Minister has confirmed that. I note that the Government are sympathetic to the problem. I was anxious to have it on the record that they are now prepared to have a look at the problem to see whether they can deal with it by regulation. I am grateful to the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 9, leave out from ("period") to ("throughout") in line 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 6.
Your Lordships will be aware that at previous stages of the Bill we have tried to reduce the minimum age for receiving the mobility component from five years to two years. The Government's response consisted of unconvincing arguments about the ability to walk and the fact that handicapped children under five have no greater problems than able-bodied children under five. When that did not work, the Minister fell back on the cost of reducing the minimum age from five years to two years.
There is no need to repeat the arguments at length. We are convinced that significant differences in the ability to walk and mobility can be discerned between non-disabled children and disabled children who have serious problems with mobility far earlier than the age of five. Those problems can result in the need to spend far more on mobility than would otherwise be the case. A little more money to help with the extra costs of mobility for children with disabilities between the ages of two and five would make an enormous and practical difference to those families and would help to relieve their worry and stress. I do not propose to take the time of the House by repeating the examples that have been given at earlier stages, but they make a strong argument.
The Government estimate that the amendment to reduce the age from five years to two years at one go would cost about £30 million. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Government the flexibility to consider implementation in stages at the Government's own speed; for example, down to the age of four, then perhaps to three and eventually to two, as the funds became available. It is important that something should be done and we are seeking to give the Government the necessary flexibility.
As I said, we well appreciate that the department might have some problems with the Treasury if the minimum age is reduced from five to two in one move. The amendment merely gives the Government the power to prescribe the minimum age by regulation without recourse to primary legislation so that the change can be made as the funds allow, perhaps in stages. It is a sensible approach. It leaves the timing and implementation entirely in the hands of the
1264
Government. Their response to this conciliatory approach will indicate how seriously they understand the problem. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the question of the lower age limit for entitlement to the mobility component has been debated at length on several occasions and at Report the House rejected an attempt by the noble Lord to reduce it from five years to two. The noble Lord has now come forward with a further amendment the effect of which would be to reopen the whole issue and leave it to be settled in regulations at some future point.
I do not see what the noble Lord hopes to achieve by this latest amendment, other than further debates. To avoid any misunderstanding, let me make it clear to the House that if the amendment is accepted the Government would have no intention of specifying anything other than five years as the minimum age in regulations. Let me also make it clear, if any of your Lordships are still in doubt after our previous debates, that it is not simply a matter of cost; though obviously cost must be an important matter. The Government are convinced that five years is the most sensible age at which to set a minimum age limit for the mobility component given that, as I believe everyone accepts, a line must be drawn somewhere. The noble Lord said that the arguments were unconvincing. I do not accept that and nor did the previous Labour government which the noble Lord no doubt supported.
I do not wish to delay the House by going over all the old ground unnecessarily, but I should again briefly state why the Government consider five to be the right age at which to start helping children with mobility needs. The key consideration is at what point the costs associated with disability begin to add significantly to the costs associated with age. No one denies that it may be apparent before the age of five that a child is unlikely ever to be able to walk. Nor does anyone deny that there may be individual cases where a child's disability causes particular problems from an early age.
However, as I said both on Report and in Committee, all children below the age of five have mobility needs. They are not independently mobile and their mobility needs inevitably place additional demands on their parents. Having recently increased the size of my own family, I hesitate to imply that young children are in any way an unwelcome burden. It is simply a fact of life that the transport of children under five creates both problems and expense. There are no doubt some exceptional cases, but I do not believe that it has been demonstrated by the noble Lord or anyone else that disability causes significant additional costs in the generality of cases involving under-fives.
I accept that the position becomes less clear cut the closer the child gets to the age of five. Any dividing line is to some extent artificial and there is always a temptation to bring in cases which are just the wrong side of it. The noble Lord suggests that we could make the change gradually if we feared that cost was the consideration, but I do not believe that that would be the way round the matter. For example, I do not see that there would be any particular logic in choosing,

1265
say, the age of four in preference to five. There is a perfectly logical basis for an age limit of five because that is the age at which most children start school and start to become independently mobile.
I suspect that the reason why the noble Lord put forward the amendment is that he is unable or unwilling to accept that the Government believe that an age limit of five is right for the mobility component. I hope that what I have said today will finally convince him that this is a point of principle upon which we are not prepared to give way. From his point of view, therefore, deferring the question of the age limit until the regulations are made would bring no advantage. Nor, frankly, do I believe that it would be right to remove an issue as fundamental as this from the Bill. Your Lordships have already expressed the view that it would be wrong to reduce the age limit from five. If the noble Lord wishes to press his amendment I hope that the House will continue to affirm that view and reject his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at least we are now entirely clear that the argument was not rejected in the past on the question of cost. It was rejected entirely because the Government believe—this is an attitude which I believe is completely detached from the reality of living with disabled children —that there is no extra cost for a handicapped child between the ages of two and five when compared with a normal toddler.
Perhaps I may quote one mother, though I could quote many. She says:
"It's disgusting! A normal child is walking at one, though maybe not independently until two. I had a handicapped child first, so I had no one to compare him with. But now, with the little girl. She's been an independent little miss for 18 months of her life, feeding herself and walking. Not in a pram. To put the mobility at five is ridiculous, because you need the help more in the early days".
In another example, a lady who had a child with cerebral palsy says:
"Just getting buses was awful. I could never do it. I was getting eviction letters for not paying the mortgage because all my money was going on taxis every week, because I had no time. If you had the Mobility from an early age, you could live as normal a life as anyone else. But without mobility … If you've got to buy a car or a van … We took out a £2,000 bank loan and we're paying out money on it all the time. But, we've done a lot of things because of the car that we couldn't have done. We're still paying the bank loan now".
It seems to me that the Government have completely ignored the arguments of the organisations and parents concerned. I do not apologise for returning to the point. We have given the Government the chance to act with flexibility over time as funds allow. Obviously, they reject the whole principle of the argument and therefore the only thing that I can do is to test the opinion of the House.
3.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Airedale, L.

Attlee, E.

Annan, L.

Aylestone, L.

1266

Banks, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kagan, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carter, L.

Leatherland, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Longford, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nathan, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Gaston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Scrota, B.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Swinfen, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Arran, E.

Gridley, L.

Astor, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Auckland, L.

Bancroft, L.

Hayter, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Blyth, L.

Ironside, L.

Boardman, L.

Killearn, L.

Borthwick, L.

Knollys, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brightman, L.

Long, V.

Brigstocke, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterfield, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mowbray anc Stourton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Cockfield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monrnouth, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Porritt, L.

Donegall, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Dudley, B.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Richardson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Elton, L.

Savile, L.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Flather, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Foley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gainford, L.

Strathspey, L.

1267

Sudeley, L.

Waddington, L

Swansea, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

Terrington, L.

Waldegrave, E

Teviot, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wise, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wynford, L

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Iraq: Kurdish Refugees
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the situation in Iraq which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the relief of suffering in Iraq. We are faced with suffering and fear on a huge scale —inside Iraq, on both sides of the border with Turkey, on both sides of the border with Iran, and in the demilitarised zone bordering Kuwait. Each of these areas has its difficult problems: in all of them the needs are formidable.
"Our response has two elements: first, to keep the refugees alive; and, secondly, to create conditions in which they can return home in safety.
"We have given prompt humanitarian help. We airlifted relief supplies to the Turkish and the Iranian Red Crescent Societies. With the United States and France, RAF aircraft have been airdropping supplies into northern Iraq. With the US and Germans we are now engaged in a helicopter airbridge. My right honourable friend has arranged for six more Chinook to deploy to Turkey from the middle of this week, bringing to nine the UK helicopters participating in this effort. We are contributing over £20 million to appeals by the United Nations and other international agencies. This includes the International Committee of the Red Cross which is at present providing the most effective help inside Iraq. Part of this money will go to our own NGOs whom I met this morning.
"We helped bring about Security Council Resolution 688 which requires Iraq to co-operate with the United Nations and other international humanitarian organisations and to stop repression. The Iraqis are receiving UN missions led by the Secretary General's representative, Mr. Suy and by the UN Co-ordinator, Prince Sadruddin.
"At the Special European Council at Luxembourg on 8th April, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister put forward a four-point plan to build on the Resolutions of the Security Council: first, the establishment of temporary safe havens in Iraq, in which UN officials can provide for the basic needs of refugees and monitor their security; secondly, a generous contribution by the EC to the UN and other appeals for funds for humanitarian relief. The Community immediately contributed 150 million ecu; thirdly, apart from food and humanitarian supplies, economic and
1268
financial sanctions against Iraq should remain in force until Saddam Hussein's offer of an amnesty is made permanent and the international community is satisfied that persecution of minorities in Iraq has ceased; fourthly, a strict arms embargo against Iraq to remain in force as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.
"We are vigorously pursuing this proposal for safe havens. Our aim is to create places and conditions in which the refugees can feel secure. We are not talking of a territorial enclave, a separate Kurdistan or a permanent UN presence. We support the territorial integrity of Iraq.
"But we have to get these refugees off the mountains. That is the unanimous view of those who have visited the area on behalf of the ODA and the British NGOs with whom I talked this morning. Some refugees are being admitted to places in Turkey and Iran where they can be better cared for. That is welcome, but is not the right answer except temporarily. We should not aim to add a new permanent refugee problem to the others which disfigure the world. The Kurds should be enabled and encouraged to return to their homes, where effective help can be given. They will not do this unless they feel secure. Undertakings such as those made yesterday by the Iraqi Government will not suffice. The UN presence in Iraq has to build up fast and solidly to monitor and help ensure the safety of those whom the Security Council has resolved to help. We share the view of President Bush when he said yesterday: 'We will not tolerate any interference in this massive international relief effort'.
"To help carry the British relief effort forward my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development will visit Turkey and Iran later this week, including the frontier areas."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. The situation in Iraq is, I know, a matter of acute concern to the Government and indeed to us all. The terrible suffering of the Kurdish people must be one of the great tragedies of history. I am sure that looking during the Recess at the pictures on television of their appalling suffering we have felt a sense of helplessness as well as shame. It is not too much to say that the coalition won the war but is losing the peace.
One thing is clear; namely, that there has been a lack of foresight and a grave failure to take concerted action to protect the Kurdish people and the Shi'ite population in the south. What makes the position worse is that the Iraqi people, which include the Kurds, were urged to rise against Saddam Hussein at the end of the war and their plight today is the result of that uprising. The ruthless treatment of the Kurds is nothing less than genocide, as my honourable friend Ann Clwyd reported today.
The charge has been made that the relief effort has been too little and too late. We appreciate the Government's efforts as described in the Statement,

1269
but can the noble Earl say whether the momentum of that relief is being increased sufficiently by us and other countries in the coalition, as failure would clearly result in the deaths of thousands more?
Further, is it not essential that the Kurds in Iraq whom one sees suffering along the borders should be properly protected by a United Nations force? No one believes that they will be safe under Saddam Hussein's police and security forces. Again, is any attempt being made to persuade Turkey and Iran to establish secure camps which are adequately serviced for the Kurds who are there or on their borders? The Statement refers merely to "places" in Turkey and Iran. Can the noble Earl be a little more specific as to the meaning of "places"? I assume that they will be well serviced camps. Perhaps he will enlarge on that passage.
We noted that yesterday the Prime Minister said that he did not rule out the use of troops. Can the Minister clarify those words and say whether there is any move to co-ordinate some positive action to defend the Kurds?
The Statement does not say very much about the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq. They also are suffering and their losses have been enormous. Can we be told what action has been taken to help them? I assume that the safe haven provision would not apply to them because of the different situation on the border with Kuwait.
Finally, the Statement refers to the safe havens. Is the noble Earl satisfied that those are supported specifically by the Security Council resolutions and can he say when they will be defined and manned by United Nations officials?
3.46 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I would like to associate myself with thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in the House of Commons. I also associate myself with much of what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said in connection with that Statement.
There is very little question but that our recognition of the terrible and tragic plight of the Kurds came extremely late. We must now make sure that the aid that we give to them is not too little and that the logistical effort which made the remarkable operation in the Gulf so extraordinarily effective in winning a war is repeated for saving the lives of people.
I must also repeat that we have there a direct responsibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. suggested —we cannot deny it—we encouraged the peoples of Iraq, of whom the Kurds are one, to replace Saddam Hussein. It seems more than ever tragic that it must appear to them that, having encouraged them, they are now being abandoned.
I should like to raise two relatively small matters before I come to wider issues. The Statement refers to activities of the Red Cross within Iraq. I hope that the Red Cross is not acting simply through the Iraqi Government, in which case the supplies will go straight to the Iraqi army and not to the people of Iraq who need them. That is an important issue which has to be cleared up.
1270
Secondly, I wholly accept and endorse the suggestion in the Statement that Sad dam Hussein's amnesty cannot have any credibility in our eyes unless it is supervised by the United Nations. But the crucial question which arises, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested, concerns the meaning of a "safe haven". We all agree that it must be temporary. Surely it must be temporarily within Iraq. Where else can it be? It can only be a place—to use the words of the Statement—where the Kurds can feel secure, if there is a UN or some other presence which ensures their security. Can the noble Earl tell us that that is being arranged and that the safe haven will be secured by a UN or, if not the UN, some other military presence?
Can the Minister also give us an undertaking that meanwhile the coalition's air supremacy will be used to protect the refugees? That will probably be necessary until Saddam Hussein is replaced. Finally, will he confirm that the policy of safe havens and the security of the safe havens until the final security of the Kurds is assured has the full support of the European Community?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome they gave to the Statement and what we are doing to achieve its implementation. I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that this is one of the great tragedies of history, It is a desperate shame that we are faced with this situation at the moment. There is nothing but disgust and outrage at the reprehensible treatment by Saddam Hussein of his population. He has proved it before and has proved it yet again.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked why we did not act sooner. We were already supporting relief operations before the latest crisis began. In 1990 we provided £11 million bilaterally and through the Community to help UN agencies and the ICRC handling the Iraqi refugees. This year we provided a further £8 million including 1 million dollars to the UN disaster relief organisation which co-ordinated contingency arrangements in Jordan, Syria, Iran and Turkey for expected further outflows of refugees from Iraq. As soon as the news of the Kurdish exodus broke, on 4th April we announced a further £1 million in immediate help, £500,000 for the ICRC and £500,000 for the supply of tents and blankets to the Turkish Red Crescent.
Our next steps will involve continuing the airlift from the UK through the RAF drops. I believe that all your Lordships would like to join me in paying tribute to the remarkable work of the RAF in very difficult flying conditions. It has done a superb job.
We are also providing £1 million to the Turkish Government for the internal purchase of relief supplies. We are looking at the medical and other requirements with British NGOs and; stand prepared to help with their projects. Both my right honourable friend and my honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development discussed that with the NGOs this morning. I gather that it was a very good meeting.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked for a further definition of "places". That will depend on where we can move the Kurds to from the mountains. It is

1271
absolutely clear that we must get them off the mountains, because only by doing so shall we achieve the full benefit of our large humanitarian aid programme. Ideally, as the Statement says, we should like to get them to a base where they can feel secure, and the best place for that is their home. However —and one can merely speculate at this stage because of the discussions that are taking place—camps might well be involved as a temporary measure. There will of course be UN supervision of the Kurds. That is an integral part of the operation because, as the Statement says, unless they feel secure through UN people being available, I am sure that they will be reluctant to go back in case Saddam Hussein imposes further persecution on them.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked about the use of troops, the point made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As my right honourable friend says, we might have to use troops if circumstances so require. We hope that the Iraqi Government will agree with the measures that we have proposed and that they can be undertaken by civilian rather than military means.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the aid going to the Red Cross ending up in the hands of the Iraqi army. My Lords, no. That is one of the points about which we are taking great care. We must make sure that the aid is given to the right recipients and is delivered to the appropriate international organisations and NGOs. I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's initiative received unanimous support in the Community.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, perhaps I may make a very important point. Is the noble Earl saying that Her Majesty's Government would in fact send troops inside Iraq itself, presumably with coalition partners, to secure those safe havens for the Kurds?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we should like to see safe havens set up. As I said at Question Time today, should the Iraqi Government make that impossible, or retaliate in any way against the Kurds once the havens have been set up, that will be met with an appropriate response.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me for intervening once more. However, it is surely the case that the Iraqi Government are continuing to attack the Kurds. It is for that reason that I asked whether we are prepared to use air supremacy—I did not refer to troops—to prevent such an attack? We can undertake that here and now. Will the noble Earl be so good as to tell the House the view on that question?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the United States has made it clear to Iraq that any attack made on the refugees north of the 36th Parallel will be met by force.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not plain, without in any way criticising the temporary measures that have to be undertaken to meet the emergency that has arisen, that there is no hope of the Kurdish people or the Shi'ites in the South
1272
coming back into their homes—which is the only permanent settlement for them—so long as active units of the Iraqi army, the Arabic-speaking troops, are in operation in those areas? Ought it not to be the objective of the international community to make Saddam Hussein withdraw his Arabic-speaking troops from the Shi'ite areas in the South and from the Kurdish areas in the North?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend raises a very important point and puts his finger on it well. That is exactly why we wish to have the agreement of the Iraqi Government to take the measure forward.
3.57 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may raise the point that I had wished to make at Question Time. I watched the dropping of supplies from the helicopters and planes. When the supplies land there is no control over their distribution. There is a huge rush of people and no obvious proper distribution. Are there any plans to try to drop supplies at settled points so that they can be handled by people in authority and distributed fairly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes indeed. There are lots of plans to try to improve the dropping of supplies. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will be the first to agree that the important factor was to get the supplies there. Given the terrain, terrible weather conditions and the logistical difficulties, it was inevitable that the first supplies in particular had to go in by Hercules aircraft. The accuracy of the drops is now much improved by the Chinook helicopters. As I said in the Statement, the number of Chinook helicopters operating in the area will increase. But the noble Lord is absolutely right to say that better co-ordination is also needed at ground level. However, given the immense number of people about whom we are talking, there are difficulties. The RAF pilots are doing a marvellous job in the appalling weather conditions.
The third point is to move the Kurds off the mountains down into the valleys where the weather conditions are less extreme, flying conditions are improved and better supervision can take place.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, I was a little puzzled by his reply at Question Time today about the mission of the Secretary-General. He connected it with the idea of safe havens, whereas it is my understanding that the Secretary-General has positively said that it is not part of his mission's work to explore such a possibility. It is important to know whether we are engaged in national diplomacy or whether there is still some hope from the United Nations Organisation itself.
The second question relates to a matter which is at least numerically manageable. I refer to the fate of some 20,000 Shi'ites in American-occupied territory in Southern Iraq from which the Americans are withdrawing in favour, it is said, of a United Nations peace-keeping force on the border but which withdrawal will permit the admission of Iraqi police

1273
and other security forces. If the safety of those 20,000 people cannot be guaranteed, what hope is there of persuading the Kurds to look for international assurances?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first question, I am sorry if I sowed confusion in his mind. What we are not talking about in the form of safe havens is what I repeated in the Statement: that is, a territorial enclave, a separate Kurdistan or a permanent UN presence. That perhaps led to the confusion about exactly what was initially meant by safe havens.
The UN presence in Iraq is partly a fulfilment of Security Council Resolution 688 which requested the UN Secretary-General to report on the plight of the civilian population in Iraq. His representative Mr. Suy is now in Baghdad. The Sadruddin Khan was also appointed, but he was appointed as executive delegate for the UN Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme for Iraq, Kuwait and the border areas. He will co-ordinate the relief effort. Over the next few days we expect Mr. Suy rapidly to build up his team to between 50 and 100 people who will monitor the situation and report. There is no difference between the ambitions and hopes of the British Government, the United Nations and the American and French Governments.
My noble friend mentioned the Iraqis in the demilitarised zone. They will benefit from our programme because our concern is for the humanitarian needs for all Iraqis. We understand that the UNHCR is willing to accept responsibility for the Iraqi refugees sheltering in areas at present occupied by the coalition forces. Again, Mr. Suy, the UN Secretary General's representative, will follow up in Baghdad the implementation of the Security Council resolution. We have also urged the Kuwaiti and Saudi Governments to give shelter to the displaced Iraqis and I am sure that they will do so.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, what pressure will the Government bring to bear on other Arab governments, of which there are many, to help their fellow moslems in their present situation? Secondly, what happened to the butter and beef mountains in Europe? Could they not have been rapidly transmitted to these starving people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I repeat that we have urged the Kuwaiti and Saudi Governments to give shelter to displaced Iraqis. This is a United Nations effort and therefore we hope that every country will join in. I do not know the answer to the second question of the noble Baroness, but it is important to get the right aid to the right people at the right time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister clarify his answer to the question asked by my noble friend about helicopter gun ships? I understand from newspaper reports that the temporary cease-fire agreement prohibited the use of military fixed-wing aircraft but that the use of helicopters was allowed for transport. Can the Minister say why the Government did not long ago use the cease-fire agreement to stop the gunning down of civilians which
1274
can be carried out in mountainous areas only by helicopter gun ships? That is an important issue which should be cleared up.
Secondly, what guarantees have been given to Iraq, and to Turkey in particular, that they will not be landed with an enormous burden of cash expenditure and a large permanent influx of refugees? The allies should guarantee totally at least the cost of the operation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question of the use of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters was decided in the cease-fire terms in United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 687. Since then the situation has progressed. The American Government have said that there is to be no attacking of refugees north of the thirty-sixth parallel, whether by fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters or other means. As regards the noble Lord's second question, the whole point of the United Nations Secretary General's two appeals is to mitigate the burden placed on countries adjacent to Iraq which might now be taking a great deal of the strain.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, will the Minister reply to the question asked by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition about action taken under the United Nations Genocide Convention 1948, to which Iraq was a signatory? Is he aware that in that convention genocide is extremely widely defined? It includes killing or harming people, irrespective of the number involved, simply because they are members of a particular race. Certainly under that convention Saddam Hussein is guilty a thousand times.
As regards the amnesty that has been promised to the Kurdish people if they return to their homes, does the Minister agree that in the light of their terrible experiences during the past 20 years the vast majority will, with total justifiability continue to dismiss any such proposal? That would remain the case if United Nations representatives were scattered throughout parts of the Kurds' homeland to ensure that the amnesty is respected. Will the Minister further accept that the only possibility of persuading the Kurds to return to their villages and homes is to rid the country forever of Saddam Hussein and all that he stands for?
Thirdly, the Minister referred to the necessity of maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq. I agree with him but is he aware that opposition to the Kurdish cause often arises through the fear of the dismemberment of Iraq if the Kurds achieve independence? I know personally the two main leaders of the revolution and have spoken to them many times. I am certain that their aim is not the establishment of an independent state of Iraqi Kurdistan, let alone an independent united Kurdistan. Will the Minister accept that their aim is to achieve a certain degree of autonomy comparable to that of an American state within the framework of a federal state after the departure of Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is true that genocide is a crime under international law. The noble Lord referred to the Genocide Convention 1948 under which the contracting parties have agreed to prevent

1275
and to punish the offence. Persons charged with genocide can be tried before national courts. The situation in Iraq is confused and therefore the first priority must be to obtain hard information. That is why the UN Secretary General's representative, Mr. Suy, is preparing a report on the situation inside Iraq. We shall consider carefully how to take his conclusions further. We all wish to see the Kurds returning to their homes in peace and security. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister put forward his initiative.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the light of the reply that the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and arising out of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, can the Minister say what is being done for the people in southern Iraq? The Minister says that pressure has been put on the Kuwaitis but how successful has that been? I believe that the Kuwaitis owe us a little attention in such matters because in recent months we have gone to some trouble on their behalf. Perhaps they can be leant on fairly heavily to assist the poor people whose American protection is being withdrawn.
The Minister repeated that the Kurds need to be brought down from the mountains. I do not disagree but it is not clear whether the Government, the Community and others involved wish to bring them down from the mountains on the Turkish or the Iraqi side of the border. The Statement points out that we should not aim to add a new permanent refugee problem to others which disfigure the world. On behalf of the British Refugee Council, which strongly holds that view, I must point out that there is a danger of setting up yet another permanent refugee population in that part of the world. That can be avoided only if the Kurds come down on the Iraqi side of the border and are properly protected for some time to come.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the first point, I assure the noble Lord that a considerable amount of discussion is taking place with the Kuwaiti and Saudi Governments to give shelter to those in the demilitarised zone in the south of Iraq.
The noble Lord quoted from the Statement which I repeated. Had he read the next sentence, he would have found the answer to his question about on which side of the mountain the Kurds would come down. I said that the Kurds should be enabled and encouraged to return to their homes.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, following the question by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, which I do not believe has been answered, perhaps I may ask this. Surely it is the case that at the end of the war the United Nations was in a position to make peace on its own terms. I understand that there has been a preliminary cease-fire settlement and now there is a permanent cease-fire settlement. How is it that in neither of those settlements was there an insistence that there should be no attacks by Saddam Hussein's military forces on either the Kurds or the Shi'ites? If that is the case, and particularly in view of the use of
1276
helicopter gunships, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, why were those gunships not prohibited from use by Saddam Hussein? Is it not now possible for the British Government, as a permanent member of the Security Council, to go to that Security Council and do what they did not do previously; namely, to insist that in the permanent peace settlement there should be provision that Saddam Hussein and his government or any successor government should be prohibited from using force against those sections of the community which we and the Americans have encouraged to revolt against them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have the full terms of Security Council Resolution No. 687 with me. That is the cease-fire agreement which has now been signed by the Iraqis and agreed by the United Nations. Therefore, I cannot comment in detail on the points made by the noble Lord. Suffice it to say that we wish to see secure and safe havens for the Kurds in their homes which must be for their own long-term benefit. The initiative of my right honourable friend sets out to achieve that.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not the noble Earl astonished, as I am, that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, should take this line? After all, during the period of the war he was insistent that the United Nations forces —that is, the American army and its allies—should withdraw immediately from the frontiers on the liberation of Kuwait. Because the Americans followed the policy of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and did exactly that, there is no countervailing force available to compel Saddam Hussein to treat both the Kurds and the Shi'ites in the way in which one would expect a civilised nation to treat its nationals.
Is it not the duty of the Government to urge the following upon the President of the United States? While we understand his reluctance to commit ground forces to enter Iraq at this stage—and we understand why he has withdrawn them—nevertheless it is essential to keep a strong air presence on the airfields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Therefore, if necessary, Baghdad can be bombed and then Saddam Hussein will have a refugee problem on his own hands.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me whether I was astonished by the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I am not. By now I am used to the noble Lord and he now ceases to astonish me. Perhaps on this occasion the Americans were right to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch; but I am sure on other occasions the Americans will think very seriously about such matters. The noble Lord concluded by commenting on the issue of air power. At present we are keeping fighter planes in the area and the Americans have said that the Iraqis must not trespass north of the 36th Parallel.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords,—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, perhaps I may point out that 20 minutes have elapsed since the Front Bench spokesmen asked their questions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, on a point of order, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he considers that when a personal attack is made on a Member of this House, that Member has a right to state that that attack was totally incorrect.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
4.18 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 8, line 12, at beginning insert ("For the purposes of sections 37ZB(5) and 37ZC(12) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which clarifies the text of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Introduction of disability working allowance]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 13, line 24 at end insert:
("(10) Regulations shall provide that where a person who claims the disability working allowance lives as a member of a couple and his partner is in receipt of—

(i) an invalidity pension under section 15 of the Social Security Act 1975;

(ii) an invalidity pension under section 15 or 16 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975;

(iii) a severe disablement allowance under section 36 of the Social Security Act 1978; or

(iv) the disability working allowance

he shall be treated as if he were not a member of a couple for the purposes of calculating his resources and the amount of disability working allowance payable.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. This amendment tries to meet objections raised by the Minister on Report on this subject. We hope to convince him that he should accept this amendment.
The amendment is aimed at ensuring that where two people with disabilities are living together as a couple, neither one is denied the opportunity to try out working, which is the object of the DWA.
Perhaps I may take the example of a couple who are living together both of whom are currently in receipt of long-term incapacity benefits but would like to start working part-time. They both find a job earning £85 per week. Under the Bill as drafted, if they both took the job their joint income would exceed the applicable amount so that they would not be entitled to disability working allowance. They would then face the choice of either both remaining on incapacity benefit or one of them claiming DWA while the other remains on incapacity benefits. Under the amendment, they could each claim DWA as individuals and both would qualify.
We are all agreed that where both members of a couple have a disability, their needs are likely to be greater. This amendment would carry two further advantages in addition to providing some extra help to people with disabilities living together as couples: it
1278
would avoid the need for one person to be subject to a disability test for a benefit received by his or her partner; and it would give greater individual freedom of choice to people with disabilities.
The effect of the amendment would be to enable people with disabilities to try out working without risking the loss of their incapacity benefits should the attempt prove unsuccessful. As the Bill currently stands, they would be less likely to take the risk thereby prolonging—in some cases indefinitely—the benefit dependency of people with disabilities. This amendment will be particularly helpful where the capital of one partner will preclude the other from claiming DWA. I emphasise that this amendment does not go nearly so far as previous attempts to establish individual assessments. Any disabled person with a non-disabled partner will not benefit. Only those whose partner is in receipt of a incapacity benefit or the DWA will be eligible.
We have tried to meet the arguments raised by the Minister at the previous stages of the Bill. I hope that he will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret that I cannot accept this amendment which is more modest than the amendments moved in Committee and on Report. The arguments raised then are very much the same as those raised today.
On Report I argued that two issues must be considered: first, whether as a matter of principle an income-related benefit should be paid to a person whose partner has sufficient earnings or capital to take the family above the general income-related benefit level; secondly, the extent to which DWA should be expected to offer an incentive to disabled people to work.
The answer as regards the first point is very clear. It makes no difference whether the claimant's partner is disabled. I remain convinced that the rules governing income-related benefits should reflect the pooling of resources which takes place in the majority of families.
Income-related benefits are paid for by taxpayers, some of whom have quite low earnings, and we must bear that in mind when deciding who should receive these benefits. The principle which applies and has always applied in income-related benefits is that the financial resources of both partners should be taken into account in calculating the benefit paid for the family. It would be inequitable to do anything else.
The second issue is to what extent DWA should offer an incentive to disabled people to work. Again, I think the answer is very clear and remains the same whether one partner or both are disabled. The indications are that, by and large, disabled people want to work and to be fully integrated into the community. They say that the benefit system obstructs them in their attempts to work. By introducing DWA and bringing in the new long IVB and SDA linking rule for DWA recipients we will go a long way towards removing the obstacles.
We have said on many occasions that DWA provides an opportunity for disabled people. DWA will ensure that disabled people on incapacity benefits

1279
can take work, even at a very low wage, confident that their earnings can be supplemented to ensure they are not taken below income support level as a result. If the claimant has a partner with sufficient income or capital to take the family above income support level it is questionable whether an income related benefit should be paid solely as an incentive for the claimant to go to work; our view is that that would not be an appropriate use of the resources available to the Government.
Disregarding the income and capital of a partner if they are sick or disabled sounds a very worthy action. However, in this case I do not believe it would be a good use of public money. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is a disappointing answer. The amendment was carefully tabled to ensure that we were not encompassing a large group of people. There will be people whose partners are in receipt of benefits. We heard the arguments earlier regarding family income and thought that by approaching the matter through this route we could convince the Government of our view. In practice, the Government's refusal to accept this approach will mean that fewer disabled people will be encouraged to work. We are already concerned that too few will wish to take advantage of DWA. However, I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7) of section 22 of the 1986 Act (calculation)—
"(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, if the person is claiming a Disability Working Allowance the prescribed lower amount shall not be less than that which would allow a single disabled person over 25, earning not more than the Applicable Amount for income support to claim the minimum Disability Working Allowance calculable, when their capital is the same as the upper limit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises a complicated point. It arises directly from the Government's concession at Report stage regarding capital limits. The Minister smiles and I believe he is aware of the complications of the argument I am about to advance.
The arithmetic is complicated and I do not propose to go into it in detail, particularly at Third Reading. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the £16,000 capital ceiling, which was introduced as a concession by the Government at Report stage, is properly effective for all disabled people with capital at or below that amount. This extremely sophisticated amendment allows the Government to decide whether to do that by primary legislation, by regulation, or both, by increasing the capital baseline, increasing the amounts of DWA payable, decreasing the £1 capital tariff deductions or a combination of all three.
We welcome the decision to extend the capital ceiling from £8,000 to £16,000. However, we are advised that if the Bill is left in its present form the
1280
regulations could inadvertently contradict the £16,000 rule by excluding a number of disabled people from the effective use of it. The amendment is intended to act as a safeguard against that and to ensure that the £16,000 capital ceiling is operable for all disabled people when their capital is at that ceiling. We assume that that was the Government's intention.
We attempted to use the benchmark of single disabled people on earnings so low that they are below the applicable amount for income support, to set either the capital baseline, the maximum amount of DWA payable or the capital tariff rate—presently set at £1 reduction in benefit for every £250 over the capital baseline—or a combination of all three. The effect will be that the £16,000 ceiling will be relevant to all claimants and not simply to those with the relatively high applicable amounts.
The Minister is aware of the problem and the complicated arithmetic involved. If necessary I can go into it. If the predetermined rate is too low then a negative benefit figure will be produced. That will render entirely obsolete the notional fixed capital ceiling of £16,000 for all claimants. I ask whether the Government accept that there could be a problem resulting from that situation.
The amendment gives the Government more flexibility in solving the problem and avoiding the situation where the £16,000 concession on capital will make DWA unavailable to many disabled people. I hope that the Minister will not think I am being overly suspicious when I ask for an assurance that the Government did not have that cost reducing loophole in mind when they made the concession on capital limits. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the House will remember that at Report stage the one really agreeable feature was the concession granted by the Minister that the £8,000 capital limit for claimants should be increased to £16,000. We were all under the impression that that was an absolute rise from £8,000 to £16,000, and that that limit should apply come what may. However, we are told that that may not be so. The Government may inadvertently have fallen into a trap which could diminish the value of the capital limit.
I shall not repeat what was said so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. If the Government have inadvertently fallen into that trap, we are giving them a helping hand by means of the amendment to get out of it. For that reason I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. If by chance the amendment does not entirely accord with the Government's view of what should be done, it should still be inserted into the Bill and if necessary amended in another place. Therefore, there is every reason for the Government to look sympathetically at the amendment, which I support.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord supports the amendment. I hope that he understands it as well as some others in the House,

1281
especially those who appended their names to it. I had to read the amendment several times before I understood its effect. It is obvious that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, had similar problems.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made clear, the amendment is a device to require the Secretary of State either to raise the lower capital limit, reduce the tariff income rate or make the rates of benefit more generous. The amendment is not entirely clear but I assume the noble Lord intends that we should be required to ensure that a single DWA claimant earning less than the income support applicable amount—£52.10 including the disability premium plus any mortgage interest payable—should be entitled to some DWA even if he has capital of £16,000. The issues are more straightforward than the complicated mechanism that the noble Lord devised to restrict the Government's room for manoeuvre in making decisions about this aspect of public expenditure.
We debated the lower capital limit both in Committee and on Report. Resources are limited and the first requirement is to help those who are least well off. That is why we proposed then, and still propose, to set the lower capital limit at £3,000 along with all the other income related benefits. Above that level tariff income will be assumed at the same rate as in the other income related benefits; that is, £1 per week assumed income for each £250 of capital.
It has been argued on several occasions that DWA recipients, being disabled, have particular need to be able to accumulate savings. As I said before, I accept that. However, one must bear in mind the forms of capital which are wholly disregarded. I shall not again give the House the various examples of capital that will be so disregarded.
I also accept that probably the majority of single people with capital close to the upper limit will not qualify for DWA because of the assumed "tariff" income. As regards our decision to increase the capital limit, I am glad that this was welcomed by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Carter, but I am sorry that both noble Lords were rather suspicious of our motives. I reassure the noble Lords that there is no need for suspicion. It is exactly the same upper limit of capital as exists in two other income-related benefits: that is, housing benefit and community charge benefit.
We considered the points that your Lordships made during earlier stages of the Bill. The effect will be that more single people, as well as couples, will qualify for DWA. If I might give an example using the illustrative rates, a single person whose earnings were equal to the DWA applicable amount will still be entitled to a modest amount—I appreciate that it is modest—of DWA if they have savings of £16,000 plus any disregarded capital. A balance must be struck between encouraging people to save and ensuring the proper use of public money. We believe that in setting the limits as we have we have found the right balance. As I have said, we will continue to review the capital limits and will continue to ensure that both the upper and lower limits are pitched at the right level for DWA and, for that matter, for all other benefits.
1282
An alternative way to achieve the object of the amendment would be to raise the level of benefit, as I mentioned earlier. This, as I believe the noble Lord accepts, would cost a great deal of money although I have to admit that it is difficult to give a precise figure. We provided illustrative rates for DWA in the note we published last November. We propose to set the DWA rates by regulation in the autumn. The rates will be set after considering all the views expressed during the Bill's passage through Parliament and in the light of the resources available. We cannot consider those until the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. I am grateful however to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment and for giving the House the opportunity to express its views and allowing me to set out the Government's position. The issues are very important. I hope the noble Lord accepts that the Government must decide the level at which DWA is set, taking into account the resources available at the time.
The aims of the noble Lord's amendment are entirely laudable, but there is a wider issue. The Government should be given reasonable latitude to set benefit rates after taking into account all factors, including the relative priority of the many calls on the resources available. As I said, we will keep in mind all the points which the noble Lord made and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, when we come to set the DWA rates later this year. I hope that the noble Lord will now feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that neither the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I am sure, nor I had any intention of impugning the bona fides of the noble Lord, Lord Henley: nothing of the sort. The whole purpose of the amendment is to try to make good what could be a gap in the Government's calculations as to the effect of the income limit. That is all: no more. If the noble Lord is taking that into account when setting the limits which will come into force in October, then of course we shall be very grateful.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought he was suspicious of the Government's motives, but I feel that perhaps the noble Lord is imagining problems which are not there. The limit of £16,000, as I said, is exactly the same as in the case of two other income-related benefits and will work in exactly the same way. Unfortunately, there will be some people who are not entitled to benefit because they have excessive savings. That is the point of the capital limit.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister is certainly right about the complications which struck him when he first saw the amendment. When I first saw it I thought it might have been much easier in Sanskrit. But it seems that the Government are not inadvertently falling into the trap about which we were informed. The Minister is entirely right about the modest amounts that some people get. We are advised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that the rates for DWA mean that some

1283
disabled people who have a capital of £15,990 may find that they are ineligible for DWA or that they will only receive a small amount; for example, 80p. That would be an inadvertent outcome, although I am not certain how inadvertent it actually is. Without in the least wishing to impugn the motives of the Minister or anybody else, I wonder whether the Government might have had this cost-reducing loophole in mind when they made the concession on capital limits.
I accept what the Minister says: we have made the Government fully aware of the problem. The noble Lord can be sure that we shall be watching like hawks to see whether they are able to pick it up when they set the DWA rates. I think that the best thing at the moment is to withdraw the amendment and to see later how the Government perform against their obligations and their promises. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Disability working allowance—supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Entitlement to remission of health charges
In the calculation of resources for entitlement to remission of charges under the National Health Service Act 1977 and National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe that payments of disability working allowance shall be disregarded.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to return to the question of the passporting to exemption from National Health Service charges of those who become entitled to DWA. We have put down another amendment which would allow the Government to go some way towards meeting our wishes. I should like to say at the outset that I am grateful for a letter sent by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in reply to a question which I raised, I think, on Report as to how many disability working allowance recipients will be helped by the National Health Service lower income scheme. If the noble Lord had been able to give some kind of estimate I should have been helped, but he has been unable to give any precise estimate. So, although I am grateful to the noble Lord for writing, his reply really has not taken us any further, and the need for this amendment becomes all the stronger.
The purpose of DWA, as we all know, is to encourage people who are partially capable of work to take up work or to return to work by propping up their earnings. If there is to be a real incentive to these very poor people to take up work, surely it is quite wrong that the benefit should be reduced by any amount which they will have to pay for increased National Health Service charges if exemption is not passported by DWA.
We are assured that DWA is modelled on family credit. Family credit provides automatic exemption from National Health Service charges. I for one and, I am sure, the rest of us who have been listening to the dialogue between ourselves and the Minister cannot really see why DWA should differ from family credit
1284
in this respect. I have to say again that the people we are talking about are very poor. They might fall into a poverty trap in gathering the advantages that accrue to them through DWA but at the same time losing the passporting to exemption from National Health Service charges which exists under the family credit scheme.
That is really what this is about. We are talking about people who face immense difficulties in their lives and who are not able to get out to work without DWA. With DWA they may get out to work for 16 hours or more. However, they find themselves in difficulties by having to pay National Health Service charges, which are now very considerable. The cost is £3.40 per prescription, and each item is separately charged. It is possible, with enough capital and foresight, to pay for the scheme in advance, but that is expensive. It costs £17.60 for four months and £48.50 for the year. It was made clear at previous stages of the Bill that these costs would undoubtedly increase the problems facing people who are not already subject to health charges. These people are absolutely at the bottom of the heap as regards income. They may be physically disabled and perhaps mentally disabled too. They should not have to bother with National Health Service charges when they have so much else to cope with and bother about.
It is no good the Minister saying, as he does on these occasions, that the Government think that such people will have enough money to pay these charges or that they should be able to use the annual or quarterly subscription. This is a matter of opinion. We do not happen to agree that the people in question should have no problem with this sum. To the Minister it may be a trivial sum but to the disabled person it is a crippling sum. A disabled person may not have the intellect to cope with these sums. It should be remembered that disabled people have not had to cope with claiming this allowance before. it is putting far too heavy a burden on very poor people. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. I hope that he will find it in his heart to agree to the amendment at this stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support the amendment. We have to look at the main objective of the legislation. We want to encourage disabled people who are capable of doing so but who may not be convinced that they are capable of doing so to get into employment, with all the benefits that that will bring to them and to society. They may have great doubts as to whether it is worth their while. They can be very easily discouraged. There is a tendency in many areas for people to think there is a catch in this new scheme. If they are told by their neighbours, "I wouldn't do that if I were you. The next time you go to the chemist you will find that the bill is more than you get in disability working allowance", their belief that it is not worth trying will be reinforced. We have positively to encourage people to feel that it is worth while.
It must also be simple. They have to be told that they will be so much better off—they must be told the exact amount—and when they get the money that must prove to be true. If they find that they get more money with one hand but they have to pull out some

1285
money from another pocket for something for which they did not previously have to pay, I suspect, though we cannot know, that a good many will think it is a trick and that it is not worth bothering with. I hope the Government will reconsider their views on the matter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. I do not think there is any need to add very much to what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. He set out the arguments extremely well. I was not satisfied with the Government's answer at Report stage. I suggested on that occasion that, as attendance allowance and mobility allowance are disregarded, DWA in this context should also be disregarded. We know from the Minister's answer that the cost is low. These are the people who are most in need of help. We cannot understand why the Government refuse to accept the amendment. It would provide some help for some of the most seriously disadvantaged people in society, people to whom prescription charges and other charges are a very heavy burden.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the present amendment is identical to Amendment No. 51 which was debated at Report stage. The latter was very similar in effect to an amendment which the Committee considered and rejected on a Division. Your Lordships decided in Committee that DWA recipients should not automatically be exempt from NHS charges. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, feels it is necessary to come back yet again on an issue that the House decided so clearly at an earlier stage. Unless some good reason is advanced for giving DWA recipients preferential treatment, it follows that they should be treated in the same way as others with low incomes.
I re-read the Official Report of our debates both in Committee and at Report stage. Your Lordships were clearly not convinced by the arguments advanced then. I do not believe that any fresh arguments have since been found for treating DWA recipients any differently from others with similar incomes when they claim help with NHS charges under the low income scheme. The amendment seeks a disregard of all the DWA paid to recipients so as to give DWA recipients more help than others with similar incomes. The only argument advanced in support of the amendment is, in effect, that some of your Lordships do not accept the Committee's decision on the original version of this amendment.
The great majority of DWA recipients will be better off in work than on an incapacity benefit. They must expect the help given by the state to the least well-off to be withdrawn as their income rises above income support level. Some DWA recipients will be exempt from NHS charges, but those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their treatment should do so. The NHS low income scheme is designed to protect people with limited resources who are not otherwise exempt from NHS charges. The threshold for exemption is set at about the same level as that used in assessing entitlement to income support, although
1286
the NHS scheme also allows for net housing costs to be taken into account. Many DWA recipients will be eligible for help under this scheme but I can see no justification for a special disregard of DWA which would put them in a rather better position than all others on low income.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, also asked why DWA recipients will not get exemption from charges that family credit recipients get. He asked how we can justify that. I said at Report stage that recipients of family credit and its predecessor, family income supplement, have been exempt from NHS charges since family income supplement was introduced in 1971. The Government have not subsequently thought it right to reduce the entitlement of this group. However, it is a central principle of government policy that help should be targeted towards those whose need is greatest. Recipients of DWA will be better off than those on income support and DWA will be more generous than family credit. Therefore it is not unreasonable that recipients of DWA should lose entitlement to automatic help with NHS charges, except for prescription charges where season tickets are available. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, implied that season tickets were overly expensive but the cost works out at less than £1 per week. Except where season tickets minimise the additional costs which can be incurred, DWA recipients will be able to apply for help with the charges through the NHS low income scheme. They can expect to receive at least partial help with the charges unless their income is substantially above income support level. We feel that that makes the best use of the resources available.
I have listened to what noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have had to say but I remain unconvinced by the arguments put to me. No good case has been made for treating DWA recipients any differently from the way in which others with similar incomes are treated under the NHS low income scheme. I hope therefore that on this occasion, especially as it has been decided at an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I found rather sinister one aspect of that reply in relation to those who are in receipt of family credit. I think the Minister said—I did not take down his words accurately—that the Government had not thought it right to alter the entitlement of those on family credit in respect of passporting to exemption from the National Health Service charges, although it has been in operation all these years. I hope I am not correct and that I am unnecessarily alarmist in drawing the inference that the Government have the intention of altering that passporting in respect of family credit. I wonder whether the Minister can reassure me on the matter. I do not think that I am being in any way suspicious in my assumption because that was indeed the implication of what he said. I since rely hope that he will be able to deny it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and because again the noble Lord appears to have suspicions as to my motives, I should point out to him that there are no plans to do so.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, in that case, I am much relieved. I thank the Minister for the assurance. However, I do not believe that I have a nasty suspicious mind, as he seems to suspect I have.
The Minister did not mention the very small amount of money involved, although he did so on previous occasions. I believe that the amount is in the region of £3 million. That really is a very small sum when one puts into the balance, against the saving of such an amount, the distress which the rejection of this amendment would cause to people who lead very stressful lives.
I believe that if disabled people, such as those about whom we are talking, receive a small benefit which is slightly in excess of that received by others on very low incomes, they certainly deserve it. I do not believe that the de minims argument has any value in this respect.
Before taking the opinion of the House, I should point out that the amendment now before us is not identical to those which were previously tabled. The proof of that statement is that it would not have been accepted by us if it had been.
4.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 97.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Airedale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Attlee, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Banks, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kennet, L.

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Butterfield, L.

Leatherland, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Chorley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Milverton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Falkland, V.

Mulley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Fitt, L.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

1288

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Walston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wharton, B

Tordoff, L.

White, B.

Underhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Knollys, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Layton, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Blyth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boardman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norrie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Derwent, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Donegal,M

Skelmersdale, L.

Eccles, V.

Slim, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Elibank, L.

Stockton, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strange, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Foley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L

Waddington, L.

Holderness, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Joseph, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Killearn, L.

Wynford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 18, line 22, after ("6,") insert ("6A,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 18. These two drafting amendments align provisions for DATs with those already in existence for SSATs and MATs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Management of disability living allowance and attendance allowance]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 19, line 10, at end insert:
(". In section 98 of the 1975 Act, after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

1289
"(4) Where a claim for disability living allowance or attendance allowance is submitted, by or on behalf of a person, and the adjudication officer is unable to ascertain entitlement, he shall direct that the claimant be interviewed by an advisory visiting officer.
(4A) The role of such visiting officers shall be to advise claimants on the criteria for entitlement, elicit the relevant information and assist claimants in presenting relevant particulars in furtherance of their claim.
(4B) Such an adviser shall be specially trained in the circumstances and needs of people with disabilities; in the conditions of entitlement for these benefits; and in interviewing skills.
(4C) The Secretary of State shall ensure the adequate resourcing, and monitoring of the work of such advisers and shall report annually to Parliament on their activities, performance and standards."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was put down by my noble friend Lady Turner. When he replies, the Minister will tell me that it is identical to one which we tabled on Report. Our reason for putting it down again is that this is our last opportunity to obtain the response of the Government to what I can only describe as the debacle on the massive arrears due to previous supplementary benefit and national assistance claimants. It is arguable that these cases would not have arisen or would have been much smaller if the adjudicators and other DSS staff at the time had been properly trained and able to interview claimants and calculate their correct entitlement.
The Minister will know that large sums of arrears have been found to be owed possibly to millions of people who have, since 1948, claimed national assistance or supplementary benefits, additional payments and so on. Although people were legally entitled to the benefits, they were not paid, and that fact was spotted by welfare rights agencies rather than DSS staff. Most of the reviews which result because of the under-payment of benefits are achieved using Regulation 72 of the adjudication regulations. This allows the DSS to conduct a review and to pay full arrears without a specific time limit where the under-payment or other mistake was due to the DSS official's error.
However, because of the increased awareness of the possible arrears due, which could be substantial, the estimated number of erroneous assessments and decisions and underpayments, the DSS proposes to remove Regulation 72 on supplementary benefit and national assistance claims. That means that the erroneous under-payment of means-tested benefits to these claimants will never be corrected. In effect, the DSS is rewriting the law and removing entitlement retrospectively. That is obviously both legally and morally questionable.
Our reason for putting down this amendment on the Marshalled List again today is that these under-payments may never have arisen and the DSS would not now be in the legal and financial morass that it is if the claimants had received a proper assessment and service in the past. If, when they made their claims, the adjudication officers and the then common visiting officers had asked the right questions and applied the correct law to the circumstances presented, these claimants would have received their correct entitlement. The chief adjudication officer has
1290
repeatedly commented on the need for improved training of adjudication officers, especially in the offices which have to deal with means-tested benefits.
The House should know from the Minister what yardsticks and standards are to be used in the future. How will the new benefits agency and the office of the chief adjudication officer work together to ensure the training of their adjudication officers? Will the current situation continue whereby the OCAO recommends improvements year in year out which are then ignored?
At the Report Stage the Minister mentioned the use of the telephone help line with telephone advisers. We feel that the provisions of face-to-face interviews with advisers would greatly supplement the service which claimants will receive.
We understand that the department agency will still have no legal obligation to provide information on the state benefits or provide advice and ensure that people receive their full entitlement. To provide a better service might at least help to prevent millions of claimants being wrongly refused or underpaid benefit, as has happened in the past. The reason for putting down the amendment is to give the Minister the chance to deal with this concern. We have used the mechanism of the amendment on the advisory officer in order to do it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, for the sake of the noble Lord, and to keep him happy, I shall say that the amendment is identical to the one which we debated on Report. However, I appreciate that he moved it as, in some sense, a probing amendment—which is rather odd at this stage of the Bill—in order to ask about the alleged underpayments in supplementary benefit over the years. It may be better if I wrote to the noble Lord on some of the matters of detail.
Given that we are approaching the final stages of the Bill, this may be the moment for me to reiterate what I and my ministerial colleagues have said before about the new assessment and adjudication arrangements. They are being introduced because we know that they are right for disabled people and not, as alleged by some, because they save staff or aid computerisation. We recognise that not everything will be perfect from the outset and we are committed to continuing to improve the arrangements after their introduction. That is a rather long-winded way of saying that, as we said in the past, we shall monitor them. One of my colleagues even said that "monitoring" would be engraved on his heart. We shall closely monitor the new system. A major part of the monitoring will be to see how effective we are in collecting evidence and providing information and advice.
The noble Lord also suggests that if supplementary benefit claimants had been visited by departmental officials and advised on their entitlement, they would not have been underpaid. In response to that, I wish to make two points. First, the complexity of the old supplementary benefit was such that I suspect no amount of visiting officers could have ensured that everyone received their full entitlement. That is why

1291
we changed the system, introducing income support. Secondly, I am not convinced that visits are the best way of advising claimants.
Moving on to training, I too am concerned that everyone who has contact with disabled people, whether by telephone, visit or over the counter, for that matter, should receive proper training. That training must go further than the rules of benefits to which people may be entitled, important though they are. It must also include awareness and education in the difficulties disabled people have and the sensitivities which may exist. The noble Lord may be reassured to hear that I hope that we shall be able to involve the disability organisations in this element of the training programme.
At earlier stages I talked about the major new facilities such as self-assessment, the benefits inquiry line and the need to give them an opportunity to work before we jump to conclusions. As I have already said, I shall give the commitment that we will continue to monitor that closely and see that it works effectively. If it is not working effectively I hope in time that we shall be able to resolve the problems. With those assurances and appreciating that we have gone somewhat wide of the amendment, I understand the noble Lord's concerns and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw what I imagine is a probing amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I know that it is unusual to put down what the Minister described as a probing amendment at Third Reading. The object was to point out that the system of advisory officers as suggested in the amendment would perhaps help to avoid the substantial problems that have arisen in the past.
I was struck by the Minister's remark that the complexity of the old system meant that people did not receive the benefits to which they were entitled. The system was not so complex that the welfare agencies were unable to find out the errors and point them out to the department. The problem arose because the department did not have the obligation to advise people of all the benefits to which they were entitled. I draw the attention of the House to subsection (4A) of Amendment No. 12 which states:
"The role of such visiting officers shall be to advise claimants on the criteria for entitlement, elicit the relevant information and assist claimants in presenting relevant particulars in furtherance of their claim".
If such a responsibility had been placed on the visiting officers in the past, these problems would not have arisen. I understand and welcome the noble Lord's comments about the proposals for training and the consultation with disability organisations. We now have enough on record both on Report and on Third Reading to keep the Government up to the mark on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 27, line 38, leave out ("so far as practicable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment will, like many others which I have been able to introduce during the passage of this Bill, receive support from all parts of your Lordships' House. The House will recall that during Report I
1292
resisted an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), which sought to ensure that every disability appeal tribunal consisted of at least one member who had an understanding of the needs of disabled people. I resisted solely on the grounds that I thought the Government could provide a more effective amendment.
I hope that the noble Baroness, and other noble Lords who spoke in support of her amendment on Report, will regard my amendments as an improvement on hers. I share the worry that DATs must have the right blend of knowledge and understanding to enable them to reach an informed and fair decision on each case. That blend must include people whose understanding of disability is derived not only from medical practice but also from other fields. The effect of my amendment is therefore to guarantee that every DAT will include a member, other than a doctor, who is experienced in dealing with the needs of disabled people, such as a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, a nurse, an informal carer, or someone who is himself disabled.
This amendment is yet further evidence of the Government's willingness to respond to sensible suggestions for improving the arrangements for administering the new benefits for disabled people. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to welcome the amendment warmly. It is indeed a more effective amendment than the one I withdrew on Report. It was perfectly possible under the Bill as it stood for all three members of the tribunal to have an understanding of disability. However, as the Minister has said, this amendment ensures that even in the least ideal circumstances at least one member of the tribunal will have experience in one way or another of the needs of disabled people. This amendment, and the amendment the Minister introduced on Report (which will generally avoid physical examinations and snap decisions being made at tribunals), will make real improvements in the working of disability appeal tribunals. I thank the Minister once again for having been willing to listen, to consider and to respond so positively in improving the Bill. I also thank him for the way he and his officials have kept the lines of communication open at all times.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the Minister for his response and to take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), on her persistence in this matter. She has achieved the outcome that she wanted. I noted the Minister's remark about sensible amendments. The Minister should realise that all amendments tabled in this House are sensible; but the amendments tabled by Members on this side of the House are much more sensible than other amendments.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Baroness on her persistence and the Minister on his acceptance of the important principle underlying her various shots at getting the matter right. It is an encouragement to the

1293
rest of us that persistence sometimes melts the hearts of Ministers. The fact that the noble Baroness has been successful in this case will no doubt encourage us to be persistent in amendments which are always sensible, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said. However, their sense is not always recognised by the Government.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I also wish to thank my noble friend for his amendment and to congratulate the noble Baroness on keeping going, like the spider that Bruce watched. This measure shows that the Government are, as they claim, a listening government.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I hope I may add a few words to what has already been said. I join my congratulations to those of others offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), on her success with the amendment. I am sure that is a delight to us all. We are grateful to her for her efforts in this respect.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that I have received for the amendment. I join in congratulating the noble Baroness on her persistence in pushing me on this matter. I hope she feels that when I said in the past that my door is open, I meant what I said. I look forward to seeing the noble Baroness and others coming forward on subsequent occasions with the caveat that I hope they do not do so with the persistence suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as I am not sure my supply of chocolate biscuits will last.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 28, line 11, at end insert:
(" . In paragraph 7A of Schedule 13 (procedure regulations) after the words "social security appeal tribunal" there shall be inserted the words ", a disability appeal tribunal".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which ensures that provisions for disability appeal tribunals are consistent with those for other tribunals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 28, line 19, at end insert:
("19. In Schedule 20, in the definition of President for the words "and medical appeal tribunals" there shall be substituted the words ", medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Disability living allowance and attendance allowance: amendments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert:
("(4) At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (6) there shall be added the words "or section 7 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment incorporates in attendance allowance legislation a
1294
reference to a Scottish provision that the Bill already has for DLA. The object is simply to ensure that AA and DLA rules are the same. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) In section 37(1) of that Act (invalid care allowance) after the words "severely disabled person" shall be added the words "or persons" and after the words "that person" shall be added the words "or persons.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, says it, I should point out that I am fully aware that this amendment very closely resembles—if it is not identical to—amendments which I have tabled and the House has discussed on previous occasions. However, I have not pressed those amendments, as the Minister will agree. I thought I had gone some way towards persuading the Minister that there was a lot of sense in this amendment, and that it is just as time consuming to spend 35 hours or more looking after one person as it is to do so for two people. The noble Lord accepted that irrefutable statement. I had hoped he was prepared to make some proposal from his side. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I have not been sufficiently active in consuming the noble Lord's chocolate biscuits. If I had been more active in that regard, this amendment might have a better future than it appears to have.
I believe from what was said on the previous occasion that the Minister understands this case. He may think there are ways in which it may be possible to claim this allowance for looking after two persons without it being strictly necessary for both those persons to receive the kind of attention that is envisaged in the Bill. Surely it would be perfectly easy for some device to be introduced to make sure that both the people concerned really needed attention, and to ensure that it would not be possible to get away with saying, "Dad is deaf and mother is a bit doddery and they both need attention". Clearly that kind of situation must not be permitted to occur. I cannot believe that one cannot devise a way of ensuring that both persons concerned genuinely need attention— that is, they do not need the kind of attention that brings them up individually to the higher grades which automatically qualify, but they both need attention which is time consuming.
I shall not repeat all the arguments I made in Committee and on Report; but because caring is time consuming, it is impossible for the carer who is looking after the people concerned to earn money— that is what we are really talking about—and therefore the carer needs financial support because of the earnings which are forgone. He needs that financial support just as much when he is looking after two people as when he is looking after one person. In order not to delay the House any longer, I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment and to have the opportunity to repeat the arguments that we have already had on

1295
the matter. The Minister will not need to be reminded that at Report he said (at col. 903 of Hansard for 25th March):
"The first question is why invalid care allowance is payable where one person requires 35 or more hours of care but is not payable where two people need care and that amounts in aggregate to more than 35 hours. … I have explained that we recognise that there is a need to look further at the first question. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Miss Widdicombe, said in another place that we would look at it again. I repeated that commitment in Committee and I do so again this evening".
A little later, at col. 904, he said:
"However, I and my honourable friend have given an assurance that it is something we shall look into".
The Government have looked at it again in the other place, they have looked at it in Committee here and at Report stage here. We hope that they will now be able to tell us that as a result they will accept the situation. It is a simple one. If a carer is caring for one disabled person who requires 35 hours or more of care a week he or she will receive ICA. If he or she is caring for two disabled people, one receiving 18 hours of care and the other only 17 hours of care, making 35 hours of care in all, the carer does not receive the ICA. The position of the Government on the issue defies all logic and sensitivity; 35 hours of care is 35 hours of care. The Government should recognise that and accept the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support the amendment very strongly, but briefly. Once again the noble Baroness has made a very strong case. I congratulate her on her persistence. If retrospective consumption of chocolate biscuits is necessary, I am sure that we shall all do that.
ICA is paid direct to the carer and therefore surely the important factor—as both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said—is the amount of time that the carer has to give. It is the chunk which is taken out of the carer's life which is important and not whether that time is being spent on two people or on one.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the Minister and his honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State have said that it is a matter that they need to look into. I hope that now we shall indeed hear that the Minister has had the opportunity to look at the matter again and finds that this is an extremely sensible amendment, and that he will be able to give a positive reply.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall not repeat what I said at Report stage on a similar amendment save to say that I very much support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I would add that the more people who eat the noble Lord's chocolate biscuits, the less chance he has of having heart disease.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment, and I congratulate the noble Baroness on her persistence. To use the word used by the Minister, this is one of the most sensible of all the amendments which have been put down. According to his lights, therefore, it should be accepted.
Having regard to the remarks of the noble Lord at previous stages of the Bill and of Miss Widdicombe in
1296
another place, I was fully expecting this amendment to be tabled not by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, but by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We are all waiting to hear why he did not table the amendment. The onus is on him.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for telling us that the amendment is almost identical to that which we debated on earlier occasions because it saves me the trouble of doing so. On both previous occasions I endeavoured to make it clear that the Government accept that the requirement to care for one severely disabled person for 35 hours or more may create problems in cases where a person looks after two or more people for fewer than 35 hours each but more than 35 hours in total. I repeat the commitment first given in another place by my honourable friend Miss Widdicombe and repeated by me on other occasions that the matter will be given careful consideration. However, as I shall explain later, it is not a matter for this Bill.
I also explained that I could not give any firm undertakings at this stage because the issue is by no means as straightforward as it may appear. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested that it would be easy to insert some device to ensure that both of the people being cared for need some attention. I fear that it is not as simple as that. The invention of rules and devices to exclude people who are not entitled to benefit can very often deter people who are so entitled.
In the course of the Bill we have had some success in resolving some problems which have previously seemed intractable, such as the identification of the severely mentally handicapped with severe behavioural problems. However, I urge the House not to underestimate the significance of the shift from looking at the care provided for one person to looking at and aggregating separate amounts of care provided for two or more people.
Officials have already started considering what would be involved in providing for carers of more than one person. It is clear that it would be a very fundamental change to ICA, adding very considerably to the complexity of administering what is currently a very simple benefit. It would also raise some very difficult issues of principle: for example, about what to do in a situation where caring stops for one of the people but not the other. What would happen if someone is caring for a disabled partner and a disabled parent in the same household with care needs of 20 hours each but the caring needs are simultaneous and do not involve the carer spending 35 hours in total? That would create a very much more tortuous adjudication system than exists at present.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that if the care does not amount to 35 hours for the two of them, it does not apply anyway. I cannot see that that is a problem.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has failed to grasp what I was trying to say. If there were two requirements for 20 hours of care but those 20

1297
hours of care could be provided at the same time, one would have to devise an adjudication system to ensure that the total amount of care did not add up to more than 35 hours.
I am trying to say to the noble Baroness, as I am sure she will grasp, that the proposal creates a very tortuous adjudication system. Although we should like to look at the matter, we do not want to introduce complexities into what is otherwise a relatively simple system. This is Report stage, but I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, if he so wishes.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful. I think that I am allowed to raise a point of information. Is the Minister saying that someone can look after two severely disabled people at the same time? That defies belief. In view of all that one has to do for disabled people, how on earth can one do it at the same time for two people and reduce the requirement for 40 hours of care to 20 hours?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord a very simple answer. Some of the care for two people might relate to their laundry needs. I do not know what knowledge the noble Lord has of washing machines; but he will appreciate that one can put two sets of washing into the machine at the same time, instead of two separate amounts of time being required.
The noble Lord has made the point of the complexity of such a scheme for me. That is the point that I am trying to get across. That is what my officials are looking at. It is not easy. I see that the noble Baroness laughs, and the noble Lord laughs; but they will appreciate that there are complexities.
I am sorry that I did not make it clear at an earlier stage of the Bill that I do not believe that this is an issue which can be resolved through this Bill at this stage. As I have been trying to say—and the noble Lord and the noble Baroness find this highly comic —we would want to look further at the problem and at any implications for the adjudication system before reaching any decision. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness does not feel able to withdraw her amendment. If ever there was a crystal clear case for an amendment, it is this, and I intend to test the opinion of the House.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Addington, L

Broadbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carter, L.

Banks, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Birk, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Craigavon, V.

Blease, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Bonham-Carter, L

David, B.

1298

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Molloy, L.

Fitt, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Moran, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mulley, L.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B. [Teller]

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Gars ton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Walston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wharton, B.

Longford, E.

White, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hives, L.

Ampthill, L.

Holderness, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Astor, V.

Joseph, L.

Auckland, L.

Killearn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belstead, L.

Knollys, V.

Blatch, B.

Lane of Horseli, L.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Layton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Duhvich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Malmesbury, E

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nelson, E.

Cox, B.

Norfolk, D.

Craigmyle, L.

Norrie, L.

Craigton, L.

Orkney, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Derwent, L.

Pender, L.

Donegall, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eccles, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elibank, L.

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Flather, B.

Stockton, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Greenway, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

1299

Waddington, L.

Wise, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Westbury, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 29, line 34, at end insert:
("House of Commons Disqualification Act /975 (c. 24)
6A. In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in Part III of Schedule 1 (other disqualifying offices) in—

(a) the entry beginning "A member of a panel appointed under section 7 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971";

(b) the entry beginning "A regional or other full-time Chairman"; and

(c) the entry for the President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals,

for the words "and Medical Appeal Tribunals" there shall be substituted the words ", Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 11.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass. Both today and at Committee and Report stages we have had a number of helpful and constructive exchanges on a wide range of issues in the area of benefit provision for people with disabilities. The spirit in which our debates have been conducted has indicated a broad measure of agreement on some points, but not all, on all sides of the House about the importance which all of us attach to making sure that the benefit system enables disabled people to keep on taking the enormous steps forward that they have taken in recent years.
This is obviously not the occasion to rehearse yet again the principles which underpin the Bill or the detailed measures which it contains. We understand why we have been pressed both inside and outside the House to go further and faster. During our discussions both here and in another place we have been persuaded of the need to make further changes. In this House alone we have ensured that severely mentally handicapped people will receive the top rate of the mobility component. We have revised the qualifying conditions for the lower rate of the mobility component to make it clear that the blind or mentally impaired people who can manage a few familiar routines will nevertheless qualify for DLA. We have doubled the upper capital limit—DWA—and we have ensured that every disability appeal tribunal will have to have a person on it, other than a doctor, who has personal experience of the needs of disabled people. Finally, we have stipulated that those tribunals shall not conduct the sorts of walking tests that have caused some concern in the current schemes.
There are other issues, some of them discussed today, which we have agreed to take away for further consideration. As I said earlier, I do not object to being pressed to go further, as has happened on various matters as the Bill has proceeded, but I believe that in time the Bill will be recognised as marking a
1300
sizeable move forward. Indeed, I am encouraged by the extent to which people are already recognising that fact.
I turn now to thank all those who have assisted in the passage of the Bill. I mention first—not necessarily foremost—those noble Lords on the opposition Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, brought his wealth of experience to these matters, and his noble friend Lady Turner of Camden contributed to our debates on DWA her great experience, particularly on employment matters. I only wish she had been here to assist us again this afternoon. I obviously welcome the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on social security matters in relation to this Bill. Despite our little disagreement on the last amendment on which we divided, I am thankful for the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Along with all those who spoke at Second Reading, I would like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Banks, back to our debates on social security matters. I said at the time that for me it was a welcome change from my noble kinsman, Lord Russell. In fairness to my noble kinsman, I have to say in passing that I rather regret his absence today, but I understand it is his birthday. I am sure that everyone in the House would like to wish him many happy returns.
I also welcome the interventions from the Cross-Benches. In particular, I welcome the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Allen. He continued to press us—though not today because he achieved what he wished to press us on—and my fellow Cumbrian, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on his particular anxieties. I am sorry that we have not been able to satisfy him as we have some others. I also welcome the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who I think asked in what part of the House the noble Lady, Lady Darcy, and her noble friend Lady Masham sat. I was always told it was known as the Mobile Bench. As always, I welcome the involvement of the Mobile Bench, and I look forward to the noble Baroness pressing me on further points.
I welcome the contributions from my noble friends. In particular, I was glad I was able to meet one of the particular concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who knows better than I what it is like to be at the Dispatch Box on social security Bills.
I imagine I am speaking for the whole House in welcoming the offerings of many outside organisations which have both pressed the Government and lobbied Members on all sides of the House on their individual concerns. I am sure we all agree that they have made a valuable contribution to the passage of the Bill through both Houses. Lastly but by no means least, I should like to thank the officials in my department who, as always, have managed to keep me on the straight and narrow.
A lot still remains to be done, particularly on the assessment and customer service front, before the two benefits come into force. But the Bill is an ambitious attempt to make several major simultaneous changes to disability benefits which we hope will prove of great help to disabled people. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I think that we can all agree that the Bill now leaving the House is a better Bill than when it came to us. Many of us believe that there is still a great deal to be done—indeed, the Minister hinted as much—if disabled people are to receive the proper income and cost allowances that they should. The House has amended the Bill in a number of ways which will certainly assist disabled people. There is no need to mention all the changes made to the Bill, but future protection of the grants given by the independent living fund has given enormous encouragement and a sense of relief to disabled people and their carers who now benefit from that fund.
I point out most strongly to the Minister that the Government's response in another place to our amendment regarding the community care component that this House has introduced into the Bill will be a sure test of their attitude towards people with severe disabilities. With the proposals for the reform of local government and the postponement of plans for the implementation of community care, it is extremely important that the amendment we have made to the Bill in that respect should remain.
The final acceptance by the Government of the arguments going back many years to secure the higher rate mobility component for the severely mentally impaired was welcome news indeed for the 8,000 to 9,000 people and their carers who stand to benefit. There was disappointment as well as encouragement in a number of respects, particularly our failure to impress upon the Government the need to take fully intro account the extra costs of disability. These costs are considerable and well documented. It is a problem to which we shall return again and again until there is a comprehensive disability cost allowance.
I made it clear at Second Reading that we welcomed a number of features of the Bill. I will not repeat those points now. The Minister has been unfailingly courteous both in the House and outside it, and the smooth passage of the Bill in a reasonable amount of time is due largely to his willingness to co-operate with our requests for information. I have been greatly assisted by my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lady Turner, who handled all the clauses of the Bill which dealt with the disability working allowance both in Committee and at Report. As always, on this side of the House we were greatly helped by the advice and briefing received from all the disability organisations.
To conclude, the Bill is a better Bill than when it first arrived here, but it does not provide a decent income and a comprehensive allowance for costs for people with disabilities. All of us will have to keep on pressing the Government to introduce such a Bill. I am sure that a Bill of that nature will eventually be passed into law either by this Government or—and here I am confident—by the next Labour Government.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the Minister on the presentation of his case. I have much appreciated it even when I have not been able to agree entirely with what he said. In the
1302
main, it was marked by its clarity. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for their contributions to our debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I should also like to mention my noble friend Lady Seear for the part she has played on these Benches in dealing with the Bill. I should like to link with those people all the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in our discussion.
On Second Reading I said that the Bill was reasonably acceptable as far as it went but it did not go far enough. It follows from that that I am content to see the Bill pass through the House, but I very much regret that only one of the amendments incorporating major improvements was carried against the Government. I refer to the amendment dealing with the independent living fund, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has already referred. That amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I am very glad that that amendment was carried, but I regret that it was the only one.
I particularly regret that the proposal to lower the age for the commencement of the mobility allowance from age five to age two was not approved either in its original form at Committee or Report, or in its much more modified form which we debated this afternoon. However, we can take some satisfactior from the fact that the Bill, lacking as it is in many things, is nevertheless now about to pass through the House.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps I may also briefly thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy. He has certainly learnt one of the maxims of oratory, which I have frequently heard recommended from the lips of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He has learnt the trick that the soft answer turneth away wrath. I commend him on his use of that device.
The Minister said that he had not been able to satisfy me on any of my amendments. But indeed he did; namely, on the capital limit being raised to £16,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, just said, the Minister did not exactly satisfy me, but the House did so against the Government's wishes when it agreed to the amendment on the independent living fund. We all very much hope that the Government are considering that amendment sympathetically and will not seek to overturn it in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he and the department would closely monitor various aspects of the Bill which were raised in this House, and particularly those on which he had given undertakings. I can assure him that not only the Government but also the voluntary societies, including the disability organisations, will be carefully monitoring the Bill.
In conclusion, I should like just to repeat my welcome to both parts of the Bill on the Second Reading. It is extremely imaginative of the Government to introduce both parts and, although we have marginally improved the Bill in both parts, nevertheless we very much hope for further improvements in the future. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the Bill marks a distinct I improvement in social security affairs.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank those noble Lords who welcomed the Bill albeit they have said that it does not go far enough. I also thank them for introducing various changes that we have felt able to bring in during the course of the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Banks, feel that the Bill does not go far enough. I can do no more than repeat what I said on another occasion when discussing these matters; namely, that we are living in the real world. One only has to look at our record on spending and provision for the long-term sick and disabled. That record speaks for itself and needs little repetition. I do not intend to repeat it on this occasion. The Bill is a continuation of that admirable record.
As I said, I am grateful for the partial acceptance of the virtues of the Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lords feel that it does not go far enough, but I imagine that that is the duty of the Opposition. Long may they remain the Opposition.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Televising the Proceedings of the House: Select Committee Report
3 p.m.
airman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)move, That the Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting on Future Arrangements for Televising Proceedings of the House be agreed to [1st Report 1990–91, HL Paper 31].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the first report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting be agreed to.
In my opinion this House has a very proud record in the introduction of television to the British Parliament. Some of your Lordships may remember, as I certainly do, the first closed circuit television experiment that took place in this House in 1968, when cameras were rather more bulky and the equipment more primitive. Then in 1985 this House initiated an experiment in national television broadcasting, thanks to the help of the BBC and the ITN, who paid for the experiment, which proved to be in most people's opinion a great success. That led to the agreement to allow the permanent televising of our proceedings which we enjoy today. In 1989 a similar experiment in another place was instituted and now it too has agreed to permanent televising of that House. In the light of that decision, your committee has sought to achieve an integrated operation for televising Parliament as a whole.
The report is short, I hope to the point and, I believe, self-explanatory. But perhaps I should just briefly outline the main points. We worked in close collaboration with the broadcasters and with the committee in another place. We recommend the establishment of a company to be called the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited. It would have 15 directors: seven nominated by the broadcasters, seven nominated by the two Houses jointly and a chairman nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Of the seven representatives of
1304
the two Houses three would be nominated by the Commons, three nominated by the Lords and the seventh would be the supervisor of broadcasting ex officio. The report proposes that the supervisor of broadcasting in another place, with the agreement of that House, should become an officer of both Houses.
The broadcasting unit would select a single independent operator to produce the clean feed of proceedings in both Houses under a contract. The costs of the equipment and the running costs would be met by the broadcasters, and any proceeds from the sale of the signal would be kept by them. Parliament would bear the cost of a central control room and any necessary alterations to the building.
So far as concerns this House, the proposal is that there should be five remote controlled cameras: two on each side of the Chamber, suspended under the Gallery, and one below Bar under the Press Gallery. However, that integrated system cannot be put in place until the siting and equipping of a control room is complete. At present various sites are under discussion and no final decision has been made. The result is that it will now be almost impossible to carry out the works required this summer and we shall probably have to wait until October 1992 before we have remote controlled cameras in this House. Until then we shall have to continue as at present with manual cameras on the Floor of the House, provided in future no longer by ITN but by the new operator selected by the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit.
From time to time the broadcasters have televised some of our Select Committee proceedings. We recommend that that should continue on the present basis. The most intrusive feature in the case of committees is the additional free-standing lighting which is required; so I am glad to report that the lighting in four of our committee rooms should fairly soon be upgraded to a level adequate for televising. One committee room is now in the process of being so converted.
Turning to the use of the signal, the committee has recommended that any programme purporting to report the proceedings of Parliament should at least make mention of the business of this House. We had in mind programmes covering parliamentary proceedings on the previous day or in the previous week; and we felt that even when public attention was much more closely focused on the affairs of the Commons, at least there should be some mention of what this House was doing if it was sitting. Otherwise, people have the impression that Parliament consists only of the House of Commons. If your Lordships agree to this Motion today, the resolutions of the House which govern the televising of our proceedings will be superseded by the provisions of this report. I would therefore propose to bring a Motion for a fresh resolution before your Lordships in due course.
Perhaps I may end with some well-deserved thanks, which go first to my colleagues on the committee, whose contributions to our deliberations have been invaluable. Secondly, I thank the broadcasters who have made the televising of the House of Lords possible by carrying almost the entire cost, in

1305
particular ITN, which provided the cameras, and its cameramen who have fitted so unobtrusively into the Chamber. They have even gone so far as to wear ties!
Thirdly, I give thanks to John Grist, the supervisor of broadcasting in the Commons, and Robert Longman, its technical adviser, for their skill and assistance. Finally I thank our Clerk to the Committee, Mary De Groose, who has been a tremendous support arid without whose help our deliberations would not have been so well summarised in the report now before your Lordships. I commend the report to the House.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting on Future Arrangements for Televising Proceedings of the House be agreed to [1st Report 1990–91, HL Paper 31].—(The Chairman of Committees.)
6 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like to endorse all the compliments that the chairman of our Select Committee so rightly paid to those who contributed to our work and who appeared as witnesses. They have been most helpful.
I wish to concentrate on one or two small points. As committee members will know, I believe that we tend to over-light the House. I am glad to say that as cameras become more sensitive that tendency is less pronounced. I always feel that we are very unkind to the monarch at the opening of Parliament. We pile on the light. Not only do we use the ordinary lights; we put spotlights on her. There is about five times more lighting on the monarch than is needed with modern cameras.
However, the situation is improving. We need to bear in mind that the modern camera is much more sensitive than even 10 years ago. I contacted Sony, who supply the cameras. I asked how the sensitivity of the cameras and therefore the need for light had changed. In the past 10 years three separate models have been brought in, each substantially more sensitive than its predecessor. Today one only needs one-third of the light to achieve the same quality of picture as 10 years ago. That progress will continue.
We have seen only recently what is possible with a very small amount of light. Research into television cameras all over the world—the military progress made in that field was of supreme importance in guiding our missiles operating in complete darkness in the recent Middle East conflict—helps the drive towards more sensitive and higher definition cameras. The cameras are also much smaller. That is an important point.
When such cameras are not manned, there is no great problem about long hours. It is very difficult to predict the length of our debates. Our Wednesday debates are general debates to which we sometimes bring greater expertise than is ever assembled in another place. Good speeches are made. The Minister who winds up takes an immense amount of trouble. However, we can all recall occasions when, after 8 o'clock, the cameras are covered with red cloth and the cameramen have gone home. The answers to the debate are therefore never heard by anyone except
1306
those sitting in the Chamber. It is pointless to spend hours building up video tapes when one never hears the answer to the debating points made. With unmanned cameras a relatively small number of people can continue the recording. The present broadcasting staff numbers five. When everything is in place, with modern equipment, that number might increase to eight, I am told. However, that is a very small number. The camera can record proceedings in both Houses for endless hours.
Much discussion is taking place about the siting of the control room. I endorse everything that is said in the report. It is necessary to have a joint control room for the two Chambers. From time to time there may be additional interviews in a small outside studio. It is highly desirable that the control room should be within the Palace of Westminster. Last week I spent a little time crawling around the attics of this great building. I was amazed at how many dusty little corners there are. I found on the old heating plan Plant Room P, which runs over the top of this Chamber. It was used to provide water cooling for this Chamber until relatively recently. I believe that it was installed about the time of World War One. It has been there for at least 70 years but has not been used for some 40 years. We now use more modern methods. It provides a space 70 feet long, 15 feet wide and about 16 feet high. There is therefore room for two floors.
Another strong runner is the dome over the central Lobby. There is considerable space which could be adapted. Even if it were not adapted for a control room, it must be of interest given the pressure within the palace for space. Taking into account the cost per square foot outside the building, it must surely be in the interests of everyone to make important use of every square foot available within the Palace of Westminster.
I have been checking the cost per square foot of space outside the palace. I had thought that it was about £40 per square foot per year. One is talking about very big money. That is £40 for every square foot that one uses. I am now told that in some places the cost is £60 per square foot. That is a very large amount of money. If we have to use space at Millbank we shall be spending a great deal of money. One of those sites is 400 metres away. Noble Lords will notice that I use metres since I was once chairman of the metrication board—one of my failures in life I may say. The liaison with the controllers, the technical people, is bound to be more difficult if we are situated 400 metres away. One cannot say, "Come and have a cup of tea and we can talk about the arrangements." I can imagine a Whip saying, "Business has had to be changed. You might like to know that X will not take place until tomorrow," or something of that kind. Close liaison with the broadcasters is important. It makes for a better relationship and better results.
I know that every one of the 650 Members of Parliament wants a private room, as do many people in this building. I have the honour to share a room with eight very active Peers. We are relatively quiet but when we all use a telephone it is not easy to concentrate one's mind on abstruse and difficult matters. Pressure is obviously great. We have moved

1307
out of a slightly larger room into a smaller one in order to make room for Cross-Benchers. There are now 240 and I can well understand that there is a demand for space.
The site for the control room will be decided in another place very shortly. I hope that we shall give a fair chance to siting it somewhere in the Palace of Westminster. I hope that during a long recess—it will not be this year because I believe that that time is fully committed—some work might be undertaken. I was told that the Parliamentary Works Office is undermanned. Since there are a number of building firms which are overmanned at present and are longing for some work, it might be a good moment to place work with some of the building firms to clear out the redundant machinery of some 60 years ago. It is immensely heavy. It must be got out of the way for some good purpose.
I hope that those points will be borne in mind by the Select Committee in another place when a decision is made.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, it is remarkable that committees of both Houses of Parliament and the broadcasting companies should have reached such a practical, sensible and economical agreement about future arrangements for televising their proceedings. They are bargains struck between willing though not over-eager providers of the proceedings and keen though cautious providers and users of the signal.
I suggest that people interested in the subject should also read the stouter document from the House of Commons which complements our report. Our reports will be read with envy by parliamentary bodies in countries where the problems have not yet been solved to universal satisfaction. I hope that both Houses at Westminster will accept the reports and proceed to implement them as swiftly as possible.
We can at last accept that the great debate to televise or not is now over. Last July the other place came to the conclusion that we in this House had reached long before: that the nation should be able to see on the small domestic screen what happens at Westminster. It is remarkable that anybody ever held different views. Children of this generation will laugh when they read the history of the controversy in Parliament and about the wild fears and imaginings, just as we laugh today at the stories about a man with a flag having to walk in front of the first motor vehicles on the roads.
Legend has it that the proposal to televise the other place was rejected because the Prime Minister of the day uncharacteristically dithered and wobbled. Privately she came down firmly against it. Some of the young aspirants of her party thought of their futures and changed their minds at the last moment. That is ironic because television captured for history the Prime Minister's finest hour at Westminster; that was her brilliant and brave performance in defending a Motion of no confidence moved by Mr. Kinnock against the Government to which she was bidding a reluctant farewell.
1308
Readers of the reports will take careful note of the arrangements for the archive, which are not yet complete. We must safeguard it carefully. It will be a treasure house for historians, as are the sound archives which go back much further in time. We see the strength and weakness of the sound archives. They do not include Churchill's historic war-time speeches in the Commons. History is dependent upon his studio broadcasts. They do not include the enchanting cadences of Aneurin Bevan criticising Churchill's strategy; nor Leo Amery telling Arthur Greenwood to speak for England; nor, much later, lain Macleod obtaining an instant reputation with a speech on the National Health Service. Our own House has some historic records on television. I think of the Earl of Stockton at the age of 90 lamenting on the sale of the family silver and of Manny Shinwell speaking on his 100th birthday.
Former sceptics of television will read with care the provisions that are made and set out at length in the Commons' document to preserve the dignity of the House of Commons. They concern the rules of coverage and what may be shown to the viewer. The standard format for depicting the Member who has the floor should be a head and shoulders shot and not a close up. However, wide-angled shots of the Chamber may be used from time to time. When the Speaker or one of his deputies rises the director should switch the picture to the chair, especially during incidents of disorder. Viewers should never see an incident such as that when Miss Devlin crossed the floor and beat poor Reggie Maudling about the head or when a younger Michael Heseltine seized the Mace. However, I wonder whether shots which may not be shown to the viewers will be put into a secret archive and held for 30 years. I hope that they will because so many cameras must record what no one is allowed to see.
The broadcasters in this House work to the same rules but they are not codified. They are well observed and our dignity is well protected. However, one day the rules might be lightened, although I do not believe that that will be for some time. Except for the greatest of parliamentary occasions the viewer will see only severely limited episodes of life at Westminster. Nevertheless, he should be able to obtain a good impression in the weeks before an election is called. Democracy will be well served, and that is the whole case for televising Parliament. It is not for the fun of it, though there is fun in plenty, and not for the inflation of political egos, although there is also that. It is done in the interests of democracy.
The report looks forward to the time when there is a totally dedicated channel with continuous unedited coverage from the Commons from the start of business to the rising of the House. The Lords could be given similar treatment. But television will never satisfy the needs of people seriously interested in politics. They will have need of the written record but that is not easy to come by today. The best records are in government publications but they now bear a commercial and therefore heavy price. The slim report from the Commons that we are discussing today costs £12.30. This miserable little 8-page report from our

1309
House costs £85. A copy of the daily Hansard of this House costs £4. That is a heavy burden for the individual student of politics or for a voluntary organisation which needs to maintain parliamentary records.
There are of course the newspapers, but on the odd day a popular newspaper can get by without mentioning Parliament at all. What at various times have been called serious, quality, posh and heavy newspapers are immensely superior to those of 20 years ago. However, there is one exception and in that respect they are much worse; that is in the reporting of important speeches and above all of parliamentary speeches. Such reporting has gone out of fashion. I sometimes wonder whether the media today do not unconsciously regard themselves as an alternative political forum to Westminster. The great political debate is carried on not here by the Thames but in the columns of political commentators, leader columns, windy interviews, letters to the editor, searing dialogues between radio and television presenters and studio discussion groups. Radio and television take up the baton of the written press and use it to beat up the politicians. An electronic medium has discovered that politics is a human drama; that is the least costly drama that it can lay hands upon.
I welcome the politicisation of television. I rejoice that after holding out for years British editors have finally admitted the political columnists. At one time they regarded them as competing with the leader column and would not allow them near the place. Such an enormous amount of comment needs a substantial, solid and objective base of reporting. We do not find that base in The Times, Telegraph, Independent or Guardian. One can find a solid and objective base of reporting only on Radio 4 in a programme broadcast just before midnight. Do not praise the BBC for that. It has an obligatory task to report both Houses. The next morning, the briefer, less adequate and sometimes less objective reporting is wholly a matter for the BBC. That is the BBC's choice without any legal obligation.
It is not only Parliament which is neglected. All serious speeches are treated rather meanly. I do not know whether Mr. Major's critics are right that he is lacking in political philosophy. However, I know that when Mr. Major went to the North to give a keynote address to young Conservatives, no newspaper ran his speech. There were marvellous stories about his breakfast on the journey but the content of his speech eluded us. Although there were many interpretations of his television interview yesterday, which extended over 50 minutes, there are no extended verbatim reports. The Times and the Telegraph gave it a coverage of 300 or 400 words, and Mr. Major probably considered himself very lucky to get that. Mr. Kinnock speaking at length on the future of a Labour Government on the radio received even less coverage.
Fortunately the media, like the political parties, change their fashions. One day a revolutionary young editor will discover the importance of printing the spoken word and perhaps the BBC will then atone for its guilt in killing the listener.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, from these Benches we join with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in commending to your Lordships' House the report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting. Its principal recommendation for an integrated operation for the televising of both Houses of Parliament and committees should bring about a significant improvement in the technical quality of the coverage of your Lordships' House and should ensure a sound and stable structure for the future of parliamentary broadcasting.
At the time of the last report in the 1985–86 Session, I was in a sense on the other side of the fence in dealing with the question of broadcasting Parliament, as at that time I was chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Therefore, perhaps it is permissible for me to say that your Lordships' House deserves great credit for its role in bringing about the long delayed entry of the British Parliament into the broadcasting age. Not for the first time your Lordships' House gave a sensible lead in an overdue reform.
I am glad that the committee is able to report that the rather tentative and somewhat primitive arrangements for televising your Lordships' House have:
"on the whole proved most satisfactory"
The committee has received few complaints. I know that ITN will greatly value the appreciation expressed to it by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees because it has served the House well.
From the broadcasters' side of the fence, I can report that the intensive surveys which are continually made about who watches what on the "box" show that the public have been impressed and perhaps rather surprised by the entertainment value of your Lordships' House on television, and more importantly by the way in which this venerable House makes its contribution to parliamentary debate.
That result has been achieved, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, remarked, without your Lordships' House laying down the kind of rules which govern camera shots in the other place. Paragraph 27 of the Select Committee report states:
"This House has … relied on the good judgment of the broadcasters … We have from time to time monitored the material produced and are satisfied that that confidence has not been misplaced".
That reflects credit on the judgment of both broadcasters and your Lordships' House. I am glad that, assuming professional standards continue under the new arrangements, the committee sees no reason to recommend any change in the present situation.
We are now recommending that the supervisor of broadcasting in the House of Commons should become a joint officer of both Houses. Perhaps it is permissible to express the hope that another place may now have sufficient confidence in the new integrated operation to adopt the more relaxed approach of your Lordships' House.
I hope that the new arrangements recommended for a joint broadcasting company and for the remote control technology will commend themselves to this House. I do not believe that the new camera positions

1311
under the Galleries will prove any more intrusive than the present man-manned cameras. Any inconvenience will certainly be more than compensated by the improved coverage, which will bring us up to the quality of picture already obtained in the House of Commons.
I am glad also that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, mentioned that in the Select Committee report from another place a major proposal has been made for a cable and satellite channel dedicated to parliamentary broadcasting. An American organisation, United Artists, has put forward firm proposals for such a channel. As I understand it, that would be similar to the C-Span channel in America. Those who have seen that will regard it highly. It gives live in-depth coverage of the proceedings in Congress and other public events in the United States. In the beginning that would only be available to a growing minority of viewers who can only receive cable and satellite television. That would be a very important complement to the present coverage by BBC and ITV.
I very much hope that the remarks made in the Select Committee report of another place urging that the new proposal should use the ITC's Marco Polo satellite will be followed up urgently as is suggested. Following the merger of Sky Television and BSB, that satellite is now available at little or no cost for such a public service operation. It has the additional advantage of using the most advanced European technology, giving a higher definition picture. Britain played a large part in developing that technology. The Sky Television and BSB merger has placed at risk the future of that technology. It will be a very useful bonus if the new parliamentary broadcasting plan can act as a white knight to save that technology so that that is not left to the Japanese.
Finally, I hope that the House will fully endorse the Select Committee's report. Perhaps it is legitimate also to hope that once the new technology is in place and it is thought possible to broadcast from start to finish the proceedings in your Lordships' House, it may be possible to have a modest but slightly more generous share of broadcasting time for this House.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I was not a member of your Lordships' Select Committee, but after the experimental period of seeing the outcome of broadcasting the proceedings of this House, it fell to me to move that Motion on which your Lordships decided to make permanent broadcasting of this House. Therefore, I have read the report of the Select Committee with particular and special interest.
It seems almost odd now to recall that at the time when I moved the Motion—and it was by no means certain to go through without a Division because there were rumblings somewhat to my left (not in any political sense)—there was real doubt as to the wisdom of the House in deciding to make permanent the broadcasting of its proceedings. Therefore, it is particularly satisfying to me, having had the responsibility of moving that Motion, that it is now
1312
generally acknowledged that the broadcasting of the proceedings of this House has been an enormous success.
That is largely due to the admirable behaviour of the broadcasters. At the time of which I speak there was fear that there might be some bias in the handling of the proceedings in the House; that some political bias might intrude. It is a tribute to those handling the matter that that suspicion proved to be wholly unfounded. There is general satisfaction with the fair and proper treatment given by the broadcasters to the proceedings of this House. It is right to pay tribute to them for the fact that their behaviour enabled those fears of some years ago to be proved quite groundless.
It is a fact also that the standing and reputation of the House was greatly improved by its proceedings being broadcast. Before the proceedings were broadcast there was considerable ignorance in the country as a whole regarding what was the purpose of the House and what it did. We were perhaps thought to be a collection of rather complacent old gentlemen with little experience of the real world. However, the broadcasting of our proceedings has shown that the House is full of people who, in many ways, are leading authorities on any subject one could mention; and that our proceedings are supported by knowledge of almost every aspect of public and world affairs represented by your Lordships.
I hope that the noble Lord who is to follow me will not mind me saying that I am sure that is the reason we now hear nothing from any quarter regarding the abolition of your Lordships' House. It is only too clear that to declare oneself in favour of that policy would be a vote loser. That is a satisfactory and direct consequence of the broadcasting of our proceedings.
As another noble Lord indicated, Parliament as a whole should be broadcast. If one goes back to the beginnings of democracy in classical Greece the proceedings of the leading men took place in the market place where citizens could go and listen to the speeches and decide how they felt about them. That was how democracy began. In a curious way the broadcasting of your Lordships' proceedings and now of the proceedings of another place has enabled the whole country to enter the market place and listen to the speeches. That must be good not only for your Lordships' House and for another place, but also for democracy.
It has already been pointed out that many proceedings in both Houses do not receive a full report in the press. It is now possible for proceedings in both Houses to be listened to by many millions of people, and that amounts to a considerable improvement in the working of our political institutions. It is therefore a valuable contribution. It is pleasant to reflect that nobody for one moment now suggests that there is any question of ceasing to broadcast the proceedings of the House.
The Select Committee report was referred to in some detail and I shall not go over it, except to say that I am particularly glad to see Recommendation 13. That is to the effect that the whole proceedings of a sitting should be included in the broadcast. I have been in the House on a number of occasions when, as

1313
the evening proceeded, the lights have suddenly gone dim, the cameras been abandoned and there has developed a slight feeling of anti-climax; a feeling that interest was waning. However, as the noble Lord opposite pointed out, often we were coming to the climax of the debate and the wind-up speeches of the noble Lords on the Opposition and Government Front Benches. Under Recommendation 13 the whole proceedings will be included in the broadcast. That is a considerable improvement.
I entirely agree with the proposal to integrate the arrangements for broadcasting the proceedings of this House with those of another place. It is obvious good sense; it is economic and is a good way of keeping the broadcasts of the two houses in line and fairly apportioned between them. I was interested, as I am sure were other noble Lords, in what was said earlier by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing regarding the necessity of finding proper accommodation for the headquarters of the integrated system. It is so important that that integrated system be introduced that it would be a great failure on the part of the Government and both Houses of Parliament if the difficulties of finding accommodation were allowed to frustrate that implementation. It should be a high priority even if other parliamentary interests suffer.
Another point I wish to make was borne out by what my noble friend the Chairman of Committees said in opening. It is that the idea that these changes should be brought into operation by the time your Lordships' House returns after the Summer Recess this year is over-optimistic. In practice these operations always take longer than one hopes or expects. It is more important that we get them right from the start rather than operating by any specific date. I hope the new arrangements, with all the manifest advantages—new cameras, lighting systems and so forth—will be introduced as soon as possible. However, I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that it is more important to get the systems right than to get them operable by any specific date.
Finally, perhaps I may say that your Lordships' House owes a great debt to the Select Committee. It produced an extremely sensible report based on expert knowledge. It gives to the broadcasting of Parliament as a whole a new and effective start which will operate to the benefit of Parliament and of this country for many years. I should like to place on record my grateful thanks to my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees, whose work in presiding over the committee was of such importance, and to the members of the Select Committee. They have served this House extremely well.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee It gives me a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction to be able to speak in the debate. I begin by taking up some of the points made in a wholly non-partisan way by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. At the end of the day not only has the House of Lords been served well by the committee, but also the House of Lords has served the
1314
parliamentary process well over the past 10 years in being willing to take the steps of which this report is part.
I very much liked the phrase of my noble friend Lord Ardwick in what was an excellent speech from a distinctive point of view. It was a point of view that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said this House was unique in offering; that is, people with experience which is unique and which they bring especially to the service of the House.
My noble friend said that we were seeing history in the making. He was referring to previous stages. However, even at this moment we are taking part in a little bit of history. In 20 or 30 years' time historians of the day, when looking back over the previous 30 or 40 years, will see this particular moment in this specific debate—let us hope in a piece of television film. We are actually making history.
The debate concerns a Select Committee report. Although there have not been many contributors to the debate, they all speak from a distinctive point of view. I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I know that his background as a parliamentarian and other interests in broadcasting of which I am well aware enable him to make the kind of contribution that he did.
I think the other point I want to make is that what we are discussing is part of a combined operation. If we do not look after our own corner nobody else will. People down at the other end of the corridor—and that is not meant to be an offensive phrase—are certainly entitled to look at the parliamentary process but at the same time they say, "Let us make sure we get our share". What the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has been careful to recognise is that the process we are involved in is history ma king because it is a combined operation. However, we must make sure that we look after our own interests as well.
Certainly I should like to endorse the remarks that were made not only by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees but by others concerning our indebtedness to those who have served us. I call them "the professionals" as a collective noun, because we have been served by them as professionals in the service of this House. That is the first point. Secondly, from the point of view of television technique those professionals have made this to be a very remarkable and satisfying exercise indeed.
I believe that your Lordships' House can take some pride in recognising that this report embraces arrangements for the televising of proceedings throughout the Palace of Westminster. To me that is a significant phrase. Many times we find differences between ourselves and our colleagues at the other end of the corridor. As realists, we recognise, if I may use a clumsy phrase, our proper place in the scheme of things. Nevertheless, when it comes to a question of wanting the public to understand what we are about, I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has said, that a great many people have been surprised, pleased and entertained simply by seeing your Lordships' House going about its daily work. Certainly I think that we are entitled to make reference to that.

1315
Not only does the report help in marking out what our role in Parliament should be but also in emphasising what our rights should be. More than one speaker has pointed out, without being too churlish, that there have been times, especially since the Commons have been televised, when somehow or other the pre-eminent position that we enjoyed when we were the only House to be televised—that was because we had the good sense to say yes while the other House said no—has changed and we have seemed not to be getting a fair crack of the whip. I believe that the arrangements which are now being made will at least entitle us to make our case as regards the arrangements for the directors, the committee and so on. I think that is all to the good.
Paragraph 2 acknowledges that arrangements made hitherto have proved satisfactory and I would endorse the premise that the televising of this Chamber has won over many sceptics. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said he doubted whether there was anyone who did not accept that this has been a resounding success. I have to tell him, without mentioning names, that one or two of my colleagues who said at the time that they were unhappy are still not very happy about the televising of the House. But at least they have had the good grace not to make too much of a song and dance about it. I believe that, if one is looking at this in terms of a vote winner or a vote loser in the context of the performance of the House, the public would give us full marks for having carried out our role in a dignified and educative way. We have demonstrated what our role is.
Paragraph 4 tells us that there are economies of scale in integrating the televising of the Lords with the Commons. While it is right and proper that cost should be a factor, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, it is much better for us to get it right than that we get it now. If it is time that we have to buy, let us buy time. I believe that, although one cannot disregard cost, because that would be stupid, in the context in which we are talking—that is, making history, recording and preserving history—if the costs are sensible (although certain people might jib at going to some authority—ultimately the taxpayer), and we think this money should be spent, we should do it right even though it will cost more than some people think it should.
Paragraphs 7 to 10 deal with what I consider to be the crux of our new arrangements and I am very pleased that your Lordships' House and all its Members are fully involved and protected. We are now going to have joint committees and professionals who will guide us. We are entering into no man's land but, looking at the numbers, at least your Lordships' House will have representation from all sides of the House. I believe that we are going to be very well served indeed.
Paragraphs 13 to 16 deal with the most important aspect of the report: that is, not what we say but how we look. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, also alluded to that point. I believe that it is right for us to be concerned about the image we present. There may
1316
have been some criticisms about the angles and the shots to be taken into account under the old system but, in my view, the new system must be better. I shall not be telling your Lordships a secret if I say that, by and large, comparing the televising of the other Chamber with that of our own, the mere passage of time and the application of improved techniques have demonstrated to me that if what we are going to get in improved technique and technical service is comparable to that which is enjoyed down the other end of the corridor, that will be a very good thing indeed.
I especially welcome the intention of eliminating the "lights out" syndrome, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I believe it had created a distinction because, although we know we are all equal, some of us who speak later in debates are less equal than others. There is nothing more aggravating, as the noble Lord mentioned, than the lights going out. I think it is more a question of "the twilight of the Lords" rather than "the twilight of the gods". I believe that many people have resented the fact that if they speak late they do not get coverage. What we shall have is a system which, as I see it, means that the whole proceedings will be televised unobtrusively and then it will be up to the good sense of the editor and those who manage matters to make sure that the final speeches of the day are given some prominence and some publicity.
Paragraph 24 deals in particular with the lighting. I would say that we do not want to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. Again, we have to get things right in that particular way. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees draw attention to the intention to light committee rooms so that they are available at appropriate times. We all know in this Chamber that most of your Lordships' Committees are held in this Chamber as a full House, but those of us who have served in Committees in another place know—and this applies also when one sees them televised—that 18 or 20 colleagues in a real Committee atmosphere are able to convey a much better sense of a true debate than we are able to engender here. Therefore I am looking forward to that very much indeed.
My final point is that the modus operandi for a supervising committee to serve, as the report says, as a forum for complaints and representations from Lords or broadcasters is certainly right. We should never forget that television was made to serve Parliament and not the other way round. We have demonstrated that we can adjust and bend so that Parliament will be the ultimate beneficiary of modern, forward-looking televising of our proceedings. For the professional service and advice which we have received, I have nothing but praise and admiration; but it will be the viewing public, the electorate, to whom we must finally turn for a considered view on our changes. The jury on that one may be out for some time but I have no doubt what their verdict will be.
6.50 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, this has been a fascinating short debate. I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in it. The noble Lord,

1317
Lord Orr-Ewing, was always our technical man on the committee and he helped us concerning lighting and cameras. I agreed with a he said today about the need not to go mad about lighting. There is also the intriguing thought of the greater sensitivity of cameras in the future. There is even the happy prospect, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, that one day the lens of the camera will be separate from the rest of the works. We shall then be able to have small eyes hidden behind curtains while the rest of the works are outside the Chamber. However, that is rather for the future.
The noble Lords, Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, also mentioned the importance of a centralised control room, which is the key to the whole operation. It is completely agreed between the two Houses that there should be a central control room. There is not yet any agreement in another place on where that control room should be. The noble Lords mentioned one or two possibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, in a delightful speech, made particular mention of the archive. That gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Sound Archive. It is part of the House of Lords Record Office which has done a splendid job in the past. It was formed in 1977, following the decision of both Houses to allow sound broadcasting of our proceedings. It then became an archive service for the televising of the House of Commons and also for some of our television programmes. However, the time has clearly come when, with a co-ordinated system between the two Houses, it is necessary to look at its present arrangements. A working party of officials has almost completed its report, which will very shortly be open to view and ready for discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is a very great expert on television. I was happy to hear that he agreed with most of the report: so he should, as he was a member of the committee. I did not expect any terrible criticisms from him. At the same time he was extremely eloquent about what we were doing. He also mentioned the interesting subject of a dedicated channel and in particular the United Artists company. It has been to see us as well. I gather that, although it will concentrate on live broadcasting from the Commons, it will certainly include considerable extracts from our debates. That will be very valuable.
I was particularly grateful to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He was the only speaker who was not a member of the committee, and it was all the more important that he supported the report. I thank him very much for his kind words, not only about myself, but particularly about the committee. I know that the broadcasters will also appreciate the tribute that he paid to them. I thoroughly agree with him that television has done a great deal for the reputation of this House. In my part of Wales my neighbours saw this House only at the opening of Parliament. They thought that we always wore red dressing gowns. It was not until they actually saw us at work that they realised that we were a working House—and a very sensible working House.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He also paid a warm tribute to the professionals, which was very welcome. He made
1318
particular mention of the Committee Rooms. Some of the televising from our Committee Rooms has been extremely interesting. I am sure that it will be valuable for the future. One day we shall perhaps have remote controlled cameras in our Committee Rooms. The Commons are already going ahead with that project, and they are paying for it themselves. At least we are able to go so far as to equip them properly with the lighting, which has always been intrusive in the past. I am sure that will be a great advantage. I should like to thank everybody who supported the report. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to

Medicinal Products: Proposed EC Regulation
6.55 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to announce support for the European Commission's proposed regulation relating to supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products (EC 6033/90) and, if so, what steps they are taking to secure agreement to the proposals.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Question is to obtain a long awaited Answer from Her Majesty's Government about the proposed EC Council Regulation concerning the creation of a supplemental protection certificate for medicinal products.This draft regulation was adopted by the Commission on 28th March of last year. It was then debated in your Lordships' House on 25th April. It also became subject to scrutiny by your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. There has been an exchange of letters, as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, knows, between himself and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, who is chairman of Committee E. Notwithstanding the lapse of 12 months, the Government did not state their position. Out of this long delay—out of this elephant—has been delivered a mouse, a mouse that was delivered this very afternoon not in your Lordships' House but in the Library of another place. This has placed myself and the other noble Lords who are participating in this debate in some strange position. Here was a government statement, on exactly the subject of the question that I tabled long ago, being delivered in the House of Commons. This has now been partly remedied because that same government statement has just been tabled in your Lordships' House.
The issue, as all noble Lords participating in the debate will know, is over a longer period of patent life for pharmaceutical products because the effective period of patent protection for pharmaceutical products has over the years, particularly over recent years, been progressively eroded. It has been progressively eroded because of the longer development period as complex drugs battle with more and more complex diseases. The period has been eroded too because of the greater time needed for the licensing process. Therefore it should be emphasised at the start of this short debate that the pharmaceutical industry

1319
is not seeking to steal a march and obtain a greater patent protection than is otherwise available to the innovators of new products. It is merely trying to regain the lost period of patent protection and place itself closer to the patent protection available for other products. That is a 20-year period. Under the EC proposals the effective period proposed is not 20 years but 16 years.
What have the Government done? They have, as I have already intimated to your Lordships, delayed. I have to put it a little more succinctly than that. Her Majesty's Government have dithered. Have the French Government dithered? The answer is no. The French Government have introduced legislation on the lines of the EC proposal. Have the Italian Government dithered? The answer is no; but this Government have dithered.
What are the basic facts? The UK pharmaceutical industry consists of United Kingdom companies and international companies operating and manufacturing in the United Kingdom. The first basic fact is that the industry is profitable, and particularly profitable. Your Lordships should perhaps be aware of the figures for 1990. Three hundred and fifty manufacturers operating in the United Kingdom produced a record pharmaceutical product worth £6,756 million. Further, the exports of pharmaceutical products from the United Kingdom rose in 1990 by another 12 per cent. The figure rose by 16 per cent. in 1989 and is now standing at a record level of £2,258 million. If your Lordships need further persuading about the effectiveness, profitability and success of the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps I may draw attention to the record trade surplus of £1.1 billion which was achieved in 1990. The UK pharmaceutical industry was the third largest positive contributor to the nation's balance of trade.
Secondly, it is not simply a story about a successful industry; it is also a story about an industry which makes another major contribution which ranks well above the wealth of the nation or the wealth of the EC. It is an industry which is also very important in protecting health and in alleviating suffering not only in the United Kingdom but also world wide. Thirdly, the pharmaceutical industry has worked under poor patent protection during recent years and is in a much poorer position, for example, than the United States of America and Japan. It is very difficult to draw an exact parallel between the periods of patent protection in different jurisdictions because the patent procedures are different. However, roughly speaking, the USA now has patent protection for pharmaceutical products for 14 years and in Japan the period is 17 years.
It is especially important to note my fourth point when considering the recent statement issued by the Government, that the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, both at the research and development level and—I emphasise—at the generic level. Perhaps I may now mention the position of the generic industry. There are one or two companies in that industry which represent a different viewpoint. However, the generic industry as a whole is supportive
1320
of these measures because it cannot exist unless and until the research and development industry has produced the products.
What then should the Government be doing? They should certainly not be dithering. Perhaps I may gently suggest that they should adopt the posture of supporting their industries. They should support their research-based industries; they should support the skilled scientists who work in such industries and, above all, they should encourage investment in the United Kingdom. However, what have they done? Well, they have certainly not given any feeling of comfort to the pharmaceutical industry. Worse still they are muddling the issue by including it with National Health Service costs. That is unfair because there are many pharmaceutical products that I could identify to your Lordships which actually save costs because they enable out-patient treatment to be given rather than in-patient treatment.
By the change of atmosphere in the Chamber, it would seem that we are now going through one of those "twilights" which always occur after the television lights have been switched off. I hope that I shall not be speaking to noble Lords in the doom and gloom of the night.
As well as being unfair, the issue of the National Health Service costs is unsound. Indeed it represents —I raised this point when we last debated the matter a year ago—a startling conflict of interest in the Government, acting as they do both for the supplier through the DTI (supposedly supportive of industry) and for the purchaser, through the DHS, in the purchase of products. I have to suggest to your Lordships that this position of both plaintiff and defendant is most unsatisfactory.
It is of course important to control the escalating costs of the National Health Service. There is no argument about that. However, it should be carried out by use of the proper means. It should be effected by the proper operation of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, the PPRS, or by other recently introduced means, such as the indicative prescribing scheme.
At this stage of the proceedings I believe that the swiftest and easiest course of action would be for us to look at the statement. I assume that the statement which I have with me is the same one as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will be delivering to the House as his speech at the end of the debate. If that is the case, perhaps I may in anticipation of his speech, and certainly after having inspected the statement, venture to pose a few questions and make a few comments.
Having set out the history on the first page, the statement continues to deal with the National Health Service costs point. I have already commented upon that issue in my submission to the House. As I said, it is unsound for the reasons that I have already advanced. On page 2 the statement reads:
"In judging the right period of supplementary protection we need to look at the historical evidence".
That is the wrong way round. We are not looking at the past, we are looking at the future. We are looking

1321
at an industry which is tackling more and more complex diseases which are most costly to research. The statement continues to say that:
"the average period of protection for new chemical entities in the 1960s was around 13 years".
It is absolutely splendid for the Government to base their case on the period of patent protection applicable about 30 years ago. The statement continues, presumably in an effort to couple the 1960s with the 1990s, to say:
"More recent evidence on the products that matter in terms of company profits"—
I should be most interested if the Minister could explain what is meant by that part of the statement—
"shows a similar overall position, and the level of research and development remains high"
I have to point out that that bland statement is in its generality misleading, if not plain wrong. There are very important drugs which have only had a very limited period of patent protection. I refer, for example, to Feldine. I mentioned that drug when I spoke to your Lordships on the matter previously. It is the non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug for the treatment of arthritic diseases. However, it only had four years of patent protection. Then there is Zoladex. It is also a very important drug and is used in the treatment of prostate cancer. Its period of patent protection has been reduced to six years. Finally there is Diprivan which is the anaesthetic drug which has special value for day surgery. Indeed, it is one of those drugs which is cost saving for the National Health Service. Its period of patent protection is five years.
The statement goes on to set out the Government's position in the penultimate paragraph. It states that their position is not to go for the 16 years' effective period of patent protection (as proposed by the Commission) but to go for one of 13 years with a maximum extension of five years. I assume that that means that the supplementary protection certificate should not, as in the EC proposal, be a period of 10 years, but that it should be a period of five years. If that is right, I have to say on first blush—and I must admit that I am no mathematician—that I do not believe the Government's mathematics are very good. I say that because if one studies the period of patent protection, on the Government's proposal one finds that during the last six years it progressively goes down from 11 years, to 10 years, to nine years, to eight years, to seven years and finally to six years. On a very elementary mathematical calculation, it seems that the period that the Government are trying to achieve in their proposals does not give an effective patent period of 13 years; it gives rather less.
The most important drugs in this connection are those which are tackling the most difficult diseases. They are the ones which take much more time to pass through the development and licensing processes. Those are the drugs which are the most valuable. Further, it is precisely those drugs which will be prejudiced by the Government's position.
Another factor that your Lordships should bear in mind is that the Government make no recommendation for any change on the EC proposals under which the time runs from the first authorisation in a member state. The licensing procedure takes different periods
1322
of time in different member states. I can cite examples where in some member states a drug has been cleared through the licensing process in year one and in another member state exactly the same drug has taken three or four years longer to be cleared. The date of the patent protection under the EC proposals goes back to the first authorisation. If the Government maintain their present position, the only result will be that we shall handicap a major industry. We shall continue to run behind the USA and Japan. The exercise is to catch up, not to overtake patent protection in Japan and the USA.
Above all, your Lordships should take into account that when tackling progressive and degenerative diseases like multiple sclerosis, Alzheimier's disease or schizophrenia, drugs to combat these diseases must have an extended period of development because the disease itself is slow and remedies cannot be discovered and tests verified over a short timeframe. Therefore, drugs for these diseases need more time for research and licensing.
I know from discussions that the Minister has had with members of the industry that he is not unsympathetic. However, we have had very little time in which to consider the full implications of the Government's statement. Can he give the subject careful thought? In the unsatisfactory position in which my fellow speakers and I find ourselves this evening, I reserve the right to return to the subject later in the parliamentary session.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. While I appreciate his remarks about an elephant providing us with a mouse this evening, I should not like anyone in the Chamber to think that I am speaking against the Government. Rather, I hope that I shall be able to speak up for British industry of which the pharmaceutical industry is to me an important part.
I was intrigued when I had the opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which concerned innovation in British industry. I think that no one in the Chamber will disagree with the many quotations to be found in the document from all corners of the earth driving home how important innovation is for industries in countries like ours. If one is developing an industry with low labour costs in the Far East, making running shoes, or even motor cars with robots, that is one thing. However, to produce new pharmaceutical compounds one needs a fascinating, complex network of infrastructure. One needs schools producing certificate-holders competent in the sciences, especially the practical sciences: chemistry, physics and biology. Later, one must find graduates competent in physiology and pharmacology as well as medical graduates to help test the new medicines. These are all part of an intriguingly complex network of the division of labour which cannot be produced quickly in developing or recently-emerging countries.
To my mind, one of the important attributes of the pharmaceutical and other similar industries to us as a people is that we start in a fairly highly competitive

1323
position. In my notebook there are quotations from people in, for example, Japan making the point that if one is to try to keep ahead in technological industry, one must not let one's lead lessen. It is difficult to get it back. The cutting edge is intellectual creativity. If we lose the people carrying out the cutting-edge work in laboratories or trials, woe betide us! It is like a good jazz band, it takes a long time to get a good jazz band together to go into the future.
I grew up in the Midlands. My school friends were all busy in the competitive industries producing motor cycles and motor cars. When I qualified medically, I did not find it difficult to become interested in the development of new pharmaceutical products. I must declare my experience and background. While I was professor of medicine at Guy's and later at Cambridge, I carried out a large number of trials on new products for the pharmaceutical industry in conjunction with the opportunities offered by the National Health Service. Many of the people who did that work were university research scientists and research doctors. I have been honoured by being chairman for six years of the Medicines Commission which is at the core of the Medicines Act 1971. That Act was concerned with the efficacy and purity of the medicines we produce in this country. It emerged from that terrible catastrophe: thalidomide. That is a catastrophe which has undoubtedly brought the whips and lashes on to the pharmaceutical industry ever since the 1960s. I shall return to that in a moment when I refer to the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned.
I am still consulted, I am proud to say, by pharmaceutical companies in the United States and this country, as well as France and Germany. So to some extent I am in the thick of it. I suppose that means that I hold dear the efforts that I find my friends and colleagues pursuing in their attempts to bring better and safer drugs to the patients of whom I used to take care and whom I still look after as a doctor.
Another feature of which I wish to remind the House on the pharmaceutical industry in this country is how often the leading edge work has sprung from British science. I do not need to remind noble Lords about Fleming, Florey and the whole avalanche of antibiotics which have grown up worldwide which came from these islands.
Noble Lords should also know that the molecular biologists who grew out of Cambridge (where I live and work now) provided the pharmaceutical industry worldwide with ways of looking at drug developments and drug actions which were quite unheard of 30 years ago. Perhaps I may go one step further and strike a blow for the physics department at Cambridge because it was the work of the Braggs, father and son, with X-ray crystallography which evolved the means whereby pharmaceutical research laboratories can work out the shape of the surface of the cells of the body. This is truly important.
When I was first a medical student and antibiotics came out, until endocrinology marched through the practice of medicine, from insulin through to the steroids, we dealt all the time with events outside the
1324
cells of the body, usually on the surface of the cells. It is much easier working and checking the safety of one's products if one is working outside the cells than working on the problems that face the medical profession, pharmaceutical scientists and research workers at this stage. We are now concerned with trying to get our pharmaceutical products into the cells. In Alzheimer's disease, there are great tangles of molecules. We do not know exactly how they arrived there, nor how we will manage to get rid of them. However, the molecular biologists have shown us what they look like, and there are prospects that we may be able to find compounds which will get into the brain cells and remove them.
AIDS is a fabulously difficult problem because it involves a virus that has not only got into the cell but also into the nucleus of the cell and right into the main chemical of our hereditary processes. It is extremely difficult to envisage ways and means of getting at the virus and eliminating it.
Those matters are running around in my mind. I hope the Minister will not mind if I say that I was rather shocked by the comment in the statement that,
"The average period of protection for new chemical entities in the 1960s was around 13 years".
The thalidomide tragedy occurred in the 1960s. I do not believe that is a good flag to nail to one's mast. It seems to me inevitable that it will take longer to find compounds to get into cells to deal with the new, complicated diseases that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred to in his splendid speech. It is quite clear to me that far from looking back to a period of 13 years, we should be trying to find ways and means to enable these incredibly able young people with their computerised views of holes in the cell through which we can get our new medicines to have a good run, to come up with the kinds of products that we shall need in the future.
I very much hope that somehow the pharmaceutical price regulations scheme, the Department of Health, the pharmaceutical industry and those of us who are still concerned, or will be more concerned —when I said "still" I was thinking of myself—with the treatment of patients, will be brought together to try to find an extension to the fair deals which were struck between price regulation, the pharmaceutical industry and the Department of Health and Social Security as it was when I was chairman of the Medicines Commission. I detect a rather belligerent attitude as regards the desire to ensure that we take account of the considerable cost to the health service of pharmaceuticals. I hope that does not mean that there is a pejorative attitude towards the research and the innovation that the pharmaceutical industry will have to develop.
We have a complicated network which ranges, as I have mentioned, from school children to Nobel prizewinners and from general practitioners to brilliant research investigators who are not all necessarily physicians. I believe this country can strike the right balance here. I hope that ways and means to strike that balance will be achieved. I have just been listening to the fascinating debate on televising the proceedings of the House. In my brief sojourn in the

1325
House of Lords I have been fascinated by the will for people to work together for the common good. I sense that will on all sides of the House. I am sure that is the kind of spirit that must be exhibited as regards this complicated problem that lies before us.
Over the weekend I considered what remarks to make tonight. I did not know that we would have the statement. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will not mind if I exercise one or two of my little dreams. I am aware that the NHS costs some £25 billion to run, but an extra £1 billion have been pumped into it for the computerisation of general practice and for the increased management of the health service. I do not wish us to think that we shall be able to export those computers second-hand to help our balance of trade. I am not persuaded either that the management techniques that we appear to be learning from the Americans will be as potentially advantageous financially to the country as well-designed, new pharmaceutical products.
I know there is grave concern on all sides of the House about the cost to the NHS of drugs. I know that care has been taken in balancing that cost through the pharmaceutical price regulatory scheme. I knew the civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Security who was largely responsible for those negotiations. He is almost a legendary umpire. I believe that he has, regrettably, been moved away from that work for the moment and is now involved with the problems of virgin births. That latter matter may be more important in the long run; but I am anxious to do all I can while I am on my feet this evening to encourage fair pricing for the products that we use.
In general terms, I am strongly in favour of government helping British industry. When the time comes for your Lordships to debate the Select Committee report of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, on innovation in industry, I shall listen to the discussions, and I shall be on tiptoe to hear how the debate progresses. There is no doubt that over the past 10 years we have not done terribly well as regards research and development. The figures that the noble Viscount and his colleagues will set down will show how well other countries have done, and how they have, through their governments, increased investment in research and development, whereas Britain is the only major industrial country, according to the Caldecote committee, to devote a diminishing proportion of the gross national product to research and development.
I am for British industry and I am for the pharmaceutical industry. I have a nightmare in which the West Germans, the French, the Americans and the Japanese run our pharmaceutical industry off its legs. I like the pharmaceutical industry as an industry because it is a clean industry. I know it has had a terrible problem with thalidomide; but apart from that dreadful blot on its escutcheon, which legend has it is due to a marketing decision and not to a scientific decision, there is nothing to be deplored. Pharmaceutical plants usually contain a workforce which is half female and half male. Many of the staff are young people. The research workers are full of
1326
enthusiasm and are well aware that they have some much tougher problems to solve than was the case in my day when we were puzzling over the best way to manage the problems of people with diabetes.
One can see that the Minister will have to stonewall a little, like Stonewall Jackson, after the release of the Government's statement. We did not realise that the statement was going to be made just before this debate started. I hope the Minister will do all he can to encourage those of us who want to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to look forward not to shrinking but rather to developing some technique for extending the patent protection, particularly when people have hard therapeutic nuts to crack.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for raising this matter, even though the debate was strangled at the outset by the fact that a statement was made by the Government in another place this afternoon. I must say straight away from this Dispatch Box that we shall need a certain amount of time to digest the contents of the statement. I am unable this evening to make any considered comments on the matter.
I start with the usual platitude with which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will be familiar. We want to strike a reasonable balance between a proper return to the pharmaceutical companies and a proper cost to the National Health Service particularly, and to the users of drugs. That platitude is taken up in the government statement. I am sure that all noble Lords would assent to that platitude. The problem is how such a balance can be struck. I shall not discuss the question of patent protection in any great detail, but there are some peripheral issues on which I wish to consult the Minister. I hope that having given him notice of some of the issues, he will be able to reply to them.
I understand that as the statement was made in another place this afternoon, the Minister cannot elaborate on it other than possibly to expand a phrase into a sentence or to use the rhetorical genius that he sometimes has in making what may appear to be rather vague statements into rather more precise statements. I shall come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said on that subject in a moment.
Perhaps I may first ask the Minister what is the legal basis for the proposed European regulation. The Government do not take a view in the statement as to whether the proposed regulation is proper in the sense of whether it should come under Article 100(A) of the Rome treaty, which would place it within the ambit of the single European market and make it subject to a qualified majority rather than unanimity, or whether it should more properly come under Article 101, which would make it a subject for unanimous judgment.
Furthermore, there seems to be some doubt as to whether the whole question of extension of patent protection should not properly be dealt with under an amendment to the European Patent. Convention, which again would make it a matter for proper discussion by individual member states. It is my

1327
understanding that a number of member states have already expressed reservations concerning the legal base for the proposed regulation. Indeed, I am informed that the German government have written to the European Patent Office in Munich indicating that they believe that the European Patent Convention is the right way to enact what the Commission has in mind. Of course any such amendment to the convention, if adopted in United Kingdom law, would require full parliamentary discussion and debate. Therefore, there is a question as to whether a regulation such as that proposed by the Commission is the right way to proceed, and indeed whether it is legally the proper way to proceed.
My second question concerns the effect of Directive 87/21 which effectively stopped licensing authorities referring to original patent holders data in giving access to generic producers. Directive 87/21, as your Lordships will recall, was not subject to United Kingdom legislation; it was implemented by administration. That is perfectly proper. I am bound to say that when I was being briefed on this subject I thought that European directives had to be translated into the legislation of the member states. However, it appears that it has to be legislated only if it is contrary to the existing legislation or there is a gap in the existing legislation. It appears that the directive to which I referred, which gives a certain degree of protection to patented products, was not the subject of parliamentary debate or legislation.
The third question that I would put to the Government is the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, put in his opening speech. Have they got their arithmetic right? Is the protection allegedly afforded, according to the government statement (which I saw only at ten to five this afternoon) what the Government pretend it is? Does it simply restore the situation as it existed in the 1960s? Is the protection for 13 years, 15 years or five years? We have no clear idea. On the basis of a very brief study of the statement I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, as to whether the arithmetic is right.
I do not want to say more about what the Government have said today because I want to move on to the position in the United States and Japan. It is common ground among all those who deal with the subject that we want to be roughly on all fours with the United States and Japan. The Government have made that quite clear and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, made it perfectly clear in his opening speech. We would broadly endorse that.
In the United States the legislation is governed by the Waxman-Hatch Act, which resulted from a negotiated compromise between the demands of multinational pharmaceutical companies and the generic sector. In simple terms, it extended the nominal patent life by granting multinationals effective patent protection for the longer of 17 years from the date of the grant of the patent or, for a product approved after 1984, for five years of marketing exclusivity. However, and this is the important point, once the patent has expired all states in the United States allow and several require the
1328
pharmacist who dispenses a product to substitute a cheaper generic product, if available, when the patent is expired and if the patented drug has been prescribed by the doctor. The United States Act also encourages generic competition after patent expiry by using abridged application procedures. Therefore, in the United States there is what I would regard as fair patent protection. Nevertheless, there is encouragement for generic manufacturers to get into business once the patent has expired.
In Japan a law permitting patent extension was enacted in 1988, broadly on the same principles as the Waxman-Hatch Act although there are some differences in detail. Monopoly protection is given for the longer of 20 years from approval of the patent or 15 years from publication, whichever is the shorter, or a maximum of five years marketing exclusivity.
I want to get that firmly on the record so that there is no misunderstanding about the situation which exists in the United States and Japan. The point about the United States which I want to stress, without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, is that once a patent has expired there is what is known as generic substitution. Some of the effects of generic substitution can be quite dramatic. There is no doubt that when a generic product is allowed to be prescribed and to be dispensed by the pharmacist it can lead to very substantial cost savings.
In the United Kingdom at the moment there is no such thing as generic substitution except within the hospital system and except on something called the white list which has been in existence since 1985 and which provides government reimbursement only for those drugs on the list all of which are drugs using the generic name. If we look at the difference between the price of the generic product as a percentage of the brand price once the brand is out of patent we come up with the following figures. Where a branded price is 100 the generic price is anything between 57 per cent. at the highest and 5 per cent. at the lowest. I have taken a sample of 12 drugs which have come out of patent and for which there is a generic substitute.
Therefore, assuming that all other things are equal, the savings for the National Health Service would be very considerable if generic substitution were allowed once the patent had expired. The last point that I wish to address is that made very cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. We all agree that there should be a proper climate of research. We all agree that there should be proper protection, not just for those people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, are already making profits, but for those people who develop drugs for the important, difficult and complex medical problems to which the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Hacking, referred. I am not entirely convinced—I say this directly to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking—that that is a function of how much profit existing pharmaceutical companies are making at the moment on their present products. However, I am convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said; namely, that it is very much a question of the proper climate for research and that it is no good trying to penny-pinch in academic work in

1329
the universities and in trying to cut down on research activity where the results of that activity may never be seen, but, if they are seen, they have dramatic results.
For instance, if we compare the number of new chemical entities marketed over the years with research and development expenditure in the UK pharmaceutical industry in 1987 prices, we find that there has been a steady progression in R and D expenditure. It has gone up substantially between 1960 and 1989, the last year for which I have any data. New chemical entities were very high in the 1960s, fairly high in the 1970s, high in the early 1980s, went down in 1984–85 and came up again in 1988–89. It is not a straight correlation. It is important—this is where I join with the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield —to make sure that there is an adequate availability of trained research staff, that the academic infrastructure is properly maintained, that taxation incentives for research are provided by government, that salary levels for academics working together with industry are adequate and that there is the proper availability of sophisticated equipment.
I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time, particularly because I have been unable for various reasons to address the proper problem that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised in his Question as we have been faced by a government statement to which I have been unable to give a considered response. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will accept that there is more to this than simple patent protection. Patent protection is certainly part of it, but the health of a proper pharmaceutical industry, be it branded, patented or generic, depends very much on the quality of the research staff and the infrastructure of academic research which we need to encourage. I hope that the Minister will reinforce that message this evening.
7.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for introducing his Unstarred Question. First, may I apologise to your Lordships' House for the sudden element of confusion that entered into affairs before we reached the noble Lord's Question and at the same time perhaps I may try to assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that, although not wishing to extend the range of the debate, I shall endeavour not to be repetitive.
It is fair to say that all of us in the House this evening miss the presence of the late Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran who, I am sure, would have made a great contribution to tonight's debate.
The Commission's proposal for a Council regulation is aimed at improving the protection of innovation in the pharmaceutical sector. The regulation would do that by extending the period of protection afforded to patented medicinal products for both human and veterinary use. In giving the Government's response, we support the motivation behind the Commission's proposal and we fully recognise the importance of patent protection for pharmaceuticals. Medicines are costly to develop and
1330
often easy to copy. The innovator must have an opportunity to secure a fair return for his or her invention. The phrase patent term granted under the European Patent Convention and the national laws of the United Kingdom and most other Community states is 20 years from the date of filing for the application for a patent. In practice, the patent term for pharmaceuticals is eroded because of the time that is needed for companies to carry out safety testing and to secure the necessary authorisation from the licensing authorities. That reduces the effective patent life of approved medicinal products.
We have already provided some improvements in protection. The 1977 Patents Act increased the term of protection for patents in all fields from 16 to 20 years, recognising that inventions generally were becoming more complicated and taking longer to commercialise. In the field of pharmaceuticals particularly we protect the data which the research-based companies produce at great expense in order to obtain a product licence. It is not available to others until the originator has had at least 10 years' exclusive marketing.
Nevertheless, the question is whether the period of protected marketing life is eroding to the point where the industry cannot obtain a return commensurate with the substantial research and development costs. Both the United States and Japan have accepted the need to guard against further erosion and already provide for the extension of patent term for pharmaceutical products.
Against this background, the Commission proposes additional protection for medicinal products which have taken a long time to bring to the market. The additional protection that it proposes is in the form of a certificate referred to as a supplementary protection certificate. The effect of the certificate would be to extend the period of protection to compensate for the patent life lost in obtaining marketing approval. The Commission proposes that the period of extra protection should be equal to the amount of patent life lost minus four years, subject to a maximum extension of 10 years. That arithmetic sounds complicated, but the broad result is that most medicinal products would enjoy a total of 16 years of useful protection.
It may be easiest if I show that by an example. If it had taken a company 12 years to get a European licence after the original patent date, it would currently have a further eight years of patent protection. Under the Commission's proposal, it would receive a supplementary certificate of protection of a further eight years to bring the protected life up to 16 years. In practice, products receiving their first European marketing approval within 14 years of their patent date would receive 16 years' protection.
We fully accept that companies should be protected from so severe an erosion of their market position as to undermine a proper return on their investment. We therefore support a safeguard against unlimited erosion of protected marketing life. There is no dispute on the principle. We also want to see a level playing field—on all fours, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said—as between the Community, the United States and Japan where, as I have said, there

1331
is already provision for patent term extension. But the Commission's proposal also needs to be considered in the wider context of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. The market of exclusivity which goes with an extended period of protection would delay the entry of competitors into the market. Because the patent and hence the proposed certificate restrict what competitors may do to prepare for marketing, it may be some time after expiry of protection before competitors are really in business.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I would ask my noble friend to help the House on one particular point. When he speaks of competitors, is he referring to delaying other competitors in the research and development industry, or is the competition to which the noble Lord is referring with the generic industry?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was referring to the generic industry.
This could result in the cost of drugs being higher than it would otherwise be. We believe we need to strike the right balance between a proper reward for the innovator and the encouragement of a competitive market. We must also take into account the considerable cost of pharmaceuticals to the National Health Service which amounts to some £3 billion annually. Here, the present Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme operates to control the profits that pharmaceutical companies may make and counters the effects of higher prices. For veterinary medicines the position is different; they are bought and paid for by farmers and pet owners and their prices are wholly determined by the market.
The question of precisely what the period of protection should be is complicated. In the United States where the patent term is 17 years from the date of grant, when calculating the extension account is taken of all of the time taken processing the product licence application but only half the development time leading to the application. The extension is also limited to a maximum of five years, and the maximum effective life of an extended patent is 14 years. In addition, there are special provisions to allow the generic companies to enter the market rapidly as soon as that period is over.
In Japan, the effective life of a patent starts at publication. The patent term is 15 years from grant or 20 years from the date of application, whichever is the shorter. They also allow a maximum extension of five years, but the maximum effective life of an extended patent is 15 years. A recent press report from Japan on a number of products receiving extended patent protection since 1988 showed an average protected life of just under 11 years and an average extension of fewer than four years. Consequently, exact comparisons are not possible owing to the different procedures for granting patents and calculating the patent terms in both the United States and Japan.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the Commission's proposal which would give a maximum extension of 10 years and a maximum effective life of an extended patent of five years would be more generous than the United States or Japanese system. It goes beyond what
1332
was needed to create a level playing field. In judging the right period of extension we need to look at the historical evidence of effective patent life. The average period of protection for new chemical entities in the 1960s was around 13 years. More recent evidence on the products that matter in terms of company profits shows a similar overall position. However, we accept there is evidence of a further decline in the past decade for all products. Notwithstanding that, the level of research and development remains high in the present situation.
Taking all those factors into account, we have concluded it would be reasonable to introduce a safeguard such that, provided the overall patent term is not unduly extended, industry will be able to count on having 13 years of protected life rather than the 16 inherent in the Commission's proposal. We also consider that the maximum extension should be five years rather than 10. Those figures would be more in line with the United States' 14 and five years and Japan's 15 and five years—provisions which would prevent further erosion of the present effective patent term.
Therefore, during negotiations we shall be seeking to amend the Commission's proposal to limit the extension to five years. Within that extension we shall also seek to ensure a 13-year protected life of those products benefiting from an extension.
Finally, we think there is a case for reducing the period of extra protection if the proprietor has not been diligent in obtaining marketing approval. In the United States law already contains such a provision. Discussions on the Brussels proposals are continuing. I recognise that the formula that I have indicated may not be the only way of achieving the right balance between safeguarding the proper interests of the industry and the taxpayer in maintaining competition in the market.
Before concluding, perhaps I may address two or three points of a technical nature which were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, quite rightly referred to the important work of the pharmaceutical industry and the relationship between industry and academia. The Government recognises the complexity of research and the difficulty of dealing with some of the diseases to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred. That is why we support the principle of patent protection and why the PPRS is continuing to take significant account of companies' research costs when controlling the price and profits of today's medicines.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, at the very start of his words this evening referred to what he considered to be the UK's lukewarm approach. I think it important to repeat that the United Kingdom Government accept the concept of protection against severe erosion. But the circumstances in this country are different from elsewhere. It may be relevant that both France and Italy have had more directly controlled prices for products which need to secure agreement for reimbursement purposes and limited competition from generic products once patent protection has ended.

1333
The noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Williams, referred to the evidence of patent term erosion. The available evidence produces slightly different answers depending on whether one is looking at all new introductions or those which turn out to be the most important in terms of sales and profits. Data suggest that the industry achieved about 13 years' average effective life for all new chemical entities in the '60s and that this has declined to between eight and nine years. However, looking at successful products, Professor Redwood showed an average effective life of patented products in the top 100 of around 13 years in 1980 and also in 1988.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to Council Directive 87/21. That gives 10 year marketing exclusivity while not full protection. It delays the ability of competitors to use the original company's research data when applying for a product licence. Indeed, it is part of a series of actions which has improved the protection of intellectual property rights. The existence of such protection is a factor in considering our position. The question is how much further one should go on top of the protection already achieved. We believe that our approach strikes a reasonable balance between the proper protection of the industry's interest and the maintenance of competition from generic producers.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether there should be an amendment to the European Patent Convention. We think that strictly the proposal does not need an amendment to the convention, but we would certainly support an amendment to it if it put the matter beyond doubt.
The noble Lord also asked why the instrument being made was under Article 100(A). There have already been laws on supplementary protection certificates enacted in France and Italy. The European initiative is needed to avoid unharmonised laws growing up around Europe, and it therefore falls within the powers conferred by Article 100(A).
What is the position of the European discussion? It is important to remember that the proposal is subject
1334
to a qualified majority. France and Italy have supported the proposal and introduced their own national legislation, to which I have just referred. Germany has accepted it in principle but raised a number of questions in relation to the European Patent Convention, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, also referred. The need for transitional arrangements has suggested a rather different form of protection from that proposed by the Commission. On the other hand, Spain has argued that the Commission has no competence in this area. Discussions in Brussels are continuing. and we should not expect a final decision or position before the end of this year. The United Kingdom Government will continue to take account of those discussions in Europe.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may remind him that in my speech I asked him whether he would keep this matter under review. I should like particularly to ask him, in view of his comments at the end about the process through the Commission with the qualified majority and the difficulties that can be perceived, whether Her Majesty's Government, having decided upon their position on this issue, are also willing to introduce their own legislation in this country pending the final resolution of that EC process.
I ask that question because of the matters on which I addressed your Lordships earlier; namely, the late arrival of the United Kingdom Government and the EC to deal with this patent protection, problem when the United States has had such protection since about 1984 and the Japanese have had it effectively since about 1986. I wonder whether the Minister can help me on that point.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is perfectly true to say that future legislation is a matter discussed through the usual channels rather than on an ad hoc basis from the Dispatch Box.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.

  IRISH LANGUAGE NURSERY GROUP: FUNDING
  IRISH LANGUAGE NURSERY GROUP: FUNDING
  ARMS SALES TO MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES
  ARMS SALES TO MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES
  PALESTINIANS EXPELLED FROM KUWAIT: COMPENSATION
  PALESTINIANS EXPELLED FROM KUWAIT: COMPENSATION
  US ARMS SALES TO IRAQ
  US ARMS SALES TO IRAQ
  ARMS CONTROL IN THE MIDDLE EAST
  ARMS CONTROL IN THE MIDDLE EAST
  GULF CEASE-FIRE AND ARMS CONTROL DISCUSSIONS
  GULF CEASE-FIRE AND ARMS CONTROL DISCUSSIONS
  MIDDLE EAST PEACE AND SECURITY: US COMMANDER'S REMARKS
  MIDDLE EAST PEACE AND SECURITY: US COMMANDER'S REMARKS
  INTERNATIONAL ORDER
  INTERNATIONAL ORDER
  ISRAELI NUCLEAR WEAPON PROGRAMME AND MIDDLE EAST ARMS CONTROL
  ISRAELI NUCLEAR WEAPON PROGRAMME AND MIDDLE EAST ARMS CONTROL
  IRAQ: ATTACKS ON NUCLEAR PLANTS
  IRAQ: ATTACKS ON NUCLEAR PLANTS
  MIDDLE EAST PEACE AND SECURITY: MILITARY PRESENCE
  MIDDLE EAST PEACE AND SECURITY: MILITARY PRESENCE
  IRAQ: REPARATIONS TO KUWAIT
  IRAQ: REPARATIONS TO KUWAIT
  BRITISH VETERINARY ASSOCIATION: MEMBERSHIP OF EUROPEAN FEDERATION
  BRITISH VETERINARY ASSOCIATION: MEMBERSHIP OF EUROPEAN FEDERATION
  SHOPS ACT 1950: ENFORCEMENT
  SHOPS ACT 1950: ENFORCEMENT
  NATIONAL INSURANCE: PUBLICITY FOR NEW RATES
  NATIONAL INSURANCE: PUBLICITY FOR NEW RATES
  CCGT GENERATING STATION PROJECTS: FINANCING
  CCGT GENERATING STATION PROJECTS: FINANCING
  BRITISH COAL CORPORATION: BOARD
  BRITISH COAL CORPORATION: BOARD