Sitting of 5 February 1991

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

    Powered Wheelchairs
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the provision of powered wheelchairs; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): We have received a number of representations about the provision of indoor and outdoor powered wheelchairs.
    Mr. Thurnham: After the success of the pilot schemes in Manchester and Newcastle, will my hon. Friend make sure that sufficient funds are available to maintain national progress? Will he see what can be done to reduce the very high costs of powered wheelchairs?
    Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend knows, it was always the intention that the services that are currently run by the Disablement Services Authority should be transferred to health authorities with effect from April this year. We have set in place arrangements that will ring-fence the funding that is currently granted to the Disablement Services Authority for two years, to ensure that, in the immediate aftermath of the transfer, the real level of provision will be maintained.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister think it fair that some of the most disabled people in Birkenhead are those who are least likely to get a powered wheelchair? If he does not think that that is fair, what will he do about it?
    Mr. Dorrell: What we are doing about it is that, from April, the local health authority will have the resources available to make a properly prioritised decision about the way in which those resources should be used. It will be for the hon. Gentleman to take up that matter with his local health authority to ensure that the people who need such services have them provided.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend take advantage of this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the various associations for the disabled and the St. John Ambulance brigade, whose work makes the lives of those who rely on wheelchairs much more normal?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am happy to take the opportunity that my hon. Friend presents to pay tribute to the role of the voluntary agencies in this and many other matters related
    144
    to health. It is right also to take this opportunity to draw attention to the valuable work that has been done by the Disablement Services Authority, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he held a different brief. It has made a substantial improvement in the efficiency with which resources are used to the benefit of the patients who use such services.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is not it the general view, after the pilot experiments in Manchester and Newcastle, that the Government's offer of £1 million in response to the DSA's request for £10 million is woefully inadequate? After all, we are talking here about independent living for people who would otherwise have to rely on much more expensive institutional care. Will powered wheelchairs be available for casualties from the Gulf if, ultimately, they can be of help?
    Mr. Dorrell: The decision on the provision of a powered wheelchair for an individual patient will be for health authorities and clinicians. From April, the £112 million budget for disablement services—the provision of wheelchairs and of artificial limbs—will be transferred to local health authorities so that they can use the resources in a way that reflects local priorities. That seems to be the most effective way of ensuring that resources are well used.

    District Health Funding
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he is giving to regional health authorities about the time scale to be adopted in transferring the funding of districts to the capitation system; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): All regional health authorities have submitted details of their proposals for achieving funding based on weighted capitation at district level. We are analysing the method and pace of change proposed by the regions and will be formulating a national policy and timetable shortly.
    Mr. Taylor: As authorities such as Southend, which has traditionally been woefully underfunded, were looking forward to the new Government proposals that would give them a fairer deal, is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern, first, that there might be an unduly extended time scale for change and, secondly, and more important, that the regional health authorities can adjust the figures as they see fit to make allowances for what they assess as deprivation? Bearing in mind the fact that regional health authorities are not subject to any democratic control, will my right hon. Friend see to it personally that they do not undermine his excellent plans?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the anxiety in Southend because my hon. Friend has made his concerns clear to us. There are two aspects of the matter. First, it is fair to say that the potential gains for Southend, which will come through in the end, must be set against the disruption to the losers in the process. It is fair to take a little longer so that the disruption is tolerable. Secondly, I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest that all the formulae produced by the regions will have to come to my Department for approval and I shall ensure that they are fair.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that he should not be too tolerant with the regional health authorities? I endorse what was said a moment ago. If the Secretary of State does not insist on the authorities allocating resources on a weighted capitation basis, underprivileged areas such as north Staffordshire will not receive the money to which they are entitled. Will the Secretary of State press them strongly?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the same assurance as I gave earlier. The plans put forward by the regions will be carefully scrutinised in the Department to make sure that they are consistent and sensible.
    Mr. Hayes: While warmly welcoming the minimum 10 per cent. cash increase, which should make it a great deal easier to introduce weighted capitation at district level, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take into account poor beleaguered Essex, which year after year has suffered cash shortages in the national health service? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to support our new regional chairman, who is very able and supportive?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend said about the regional chairman, who is strengthening management throughout his area. I take my hon. Friend's point. He understands why I have slowed down by, I hope, no more than a year the move to full weighted capitation at the regional level so that there is not too much disruption in the process.

    Gulf War Casualties
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that the best medical facilities in this country are available when needed to treat Gulf war coalition casualties; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received with regard to the additional resourcing requirements of hospitals likely to be caring for possible casualties of the Gulf war.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Health authorities have made arrangements to treat British Gulf casualties. The national health service will be able to recover the full costs of such treatment.
    Mr. Strang: Has the Secretary of State heard the Prime Minister's warning that Saddam Hussein might soon resort to the use of chemical weapons? Does he agree with the views of medical experts that in the worst-case scenario, our burns and plastic surgery units might be overwhelmed with thousands of casualties? Is he satisfied that health authorities are taking all immediate steps to increase the number of staff available in such units, as it is likely that staff, rather than equipment and buildings, will limit the number of people who can be treated quickly?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the health service is well prepared. The remarks to which the hon. Gentleman may be referring were originally made by Professor McGrouther, a great man in plastic surgery. I am happy to say that last week he said that he was quite satisfied that the health service is fully prepared.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance to the House that no patients will be turned away from hospitals before any Gulf casualties arrive in Britain? If it has to happen, will he ensure that national health service patients share the sacrifice equally with private patients in national health service beds?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We do not believe that it will be necessary for patients to be turned away from hospitals or for wards to be emptied at present. It is worth remembering that if the worst comes to the worst and there are many casualties, there will be a considerable warning time before patients begin to arrive in national health service hospitals.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have checked with Northampton district health authority and in particular Northampton general hospital and that I have only the utmost praise for the preparations that have been undertaken? May I say a particular thank you to the Department of Health?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I join him in saying that the Gulf crisis shows the health service once again at its very best. The speedy co-operation that has been exercised between the different levels—region, centre, district and hospital—is exemplary.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will meet the full extra cost of Gulf casualties so that any increase in waiting lists does not last too long?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I give my hon. Friend that assurance in the clearest terms.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While accepting the Secretary of State's assurance about the immediate care of casualties, may I ask about their long-term care? Will they be left to depend on local charities or will adequate provision be made for them in their communities?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The Ministry of Defence and the forces have considerable expertise in the matter. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health will be answering a question later today about the role of the social services in this.
    Mr. Allason: Did my right hon. Friend see the televised broadcast on behalf of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association during the weekend and does he agree that the point might be misinterpreted? Will he confirm that there is plenty of room for rehabilitation and recuperation for any Gulf casualties and that the private sector will not have to contribute places?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As I said, the national health service and the organisations that are accountable to the House are well prepared for any challenge that may face them.
    Mr. Robin Cook: In view of the Secretary of State's welcome assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) that it should not be necessary for hospitals to turn away patients now, may I invite him to comment on a letter that I have seen that was sent to a woman in her 80s advising her that many operations have been cancelled at the hospital in question because beds are already closed for Gulf casualties? Does he agree that it would be wrong if elderly patients were to become early casualties of the Gulf war? Will he urge

    147
    health authorities to meet the new emergency not by closing even more beds but by bringing back into service some of the 27,000 that have been closed under Conservative rule?
    Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman had been interested in receiving a serious reply to a serious question, he would have been courteous enough to raise the matter with me earlier. If he will send me the letter, I will give him a proper reply.
    Mr. Sims: Although the treatment of Gulf casualties may mean the postponement of non-urgent operations, may we be assured that there will be no diminution in the ability of the NHS to respond to civil emergencies such as multiple car crashes or the recent Cannon street train crash?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's point is entirely fair. I have been assured by the chief executive of the health service that it will be able to maintain its emergency cover for civil emergencies. It is worth remembering that compared with the scale of activities of the NHS, which treats about 8·5 million cases a year, even the worst-case scenarios about which the commentators have been telling us should be relatively well within its capacity.

    Manchester Hospitals
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for a review of hospital services in the Manchester/Trafford area following the opting-out decision by central Manchester hospitals.
    Mr. Dorrell: None, Sir.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister prepared to put on record in this place what his colleague in another place told me in a letter: that when the new children's hospital is built in central Manchester—on the same site as the now to be opted-out hospital—it will itself be considered for opting out? Is he aware that in the north-west region we already have about double the national child mortality rate and that in central Manchester we have triple the rate? Is the Minister aware that the people of the region do not want opting out, which is irrelevant to their needs, but the resources to make sure that our children do not die?
    Mr. Dorrell: No hospital has opted out of the NHS and we shall not entertain a proposal from any NHS hospital to opt out of the NHS. NHS hospitals are not for sale. The change that we are introducing is designed to give more power to the local management teams of hospitals to use the resources devoted to those hospitals to the best advantage of the patients.
    Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend explain why Christie hospital in Manchester has refused to supply the drug interleukin to my constituent Mrs. Kendrick, even though it had been prescribed by Dr. Thatcher of that hospital? Does this have anything to do with the reorganisation of hospitals in Manchester?
    Mr. Dorrell: It has nothing to do with the reorganisation of hospitals. There has been some discussion of the subject in the press today and I make three simple points about it: interleukin does not have a product licence in this country or in the United States; one manufacturer of the drug has decided not to proceed with
    148
    clinical trials because of doubts over its efficacy, and the decision not to use the drug in Christie hospital was taken by the drug and therapeutics committee of that hospital before Christmas, nine of the 12 members of that committee being medical people.
    Mr. Robin Cook: In view of the Minister's reference to the minute of the 12 consultants, may I remind him that it clearly specified that the consultants decided that there was general support for interleukin, but that the treatment could not be used within existing funds? Is not it clear from the very committee from which he quotes that its decision not to proceed with a drug that had been used in that hospital for four years, regardless of whether it had a licence, was due to the deficit at Christie hospital? Three years ago, even this Government met hospital deficits with extra funds, not extra cuts. Does not the Minister appreciate that the response to the case shows that the public would much rather that the Christie hospital deficit was cleared by the taxpayer than by not treating Mrs. Kendrick?
    Mr. Dorrell: Is the hon. Gentleman inviting the House to put his clinical opinion ahead of that of the Committee on Safety of Medicines or the Food and Drug Administration? The use of that drug in Christie hospital was part of a clinical trial and the hospital's drug and therapeutics committee decided that there were greater priorities for the use of the resources available to the hospital. The Labour party is as explicit as the Government in proposing that the only way to run a publicly funded free national health service is on the basis of there being a limit to the resources available to fund it.

    Heart Attacks
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the rate of heart attacks in (a) men and (b) women (i) under 50 and (ii) over 50 years.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): In 1989, the death rate per 10,000 population in England from acute myocardial infarction was 1·03 for men and 0·13 for women under the age of 50 and 68·81 for men and 45·88 for women over the age of 50.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. She is saying that young women hardly ever have heart attacks or strokes, whereas the number of women over 50 who suffer those conditions is rapidly catching up with the number of men. They are the largest single cause of death for women in that older age group. Is my hon. Friend aware of the research work carried out at King's College hospital showing that hormone replacement therapy is a way to protect women from such an early death? Will she state the amount of money currently spent in the health service on making hormone replacement therapy available to women in that older age group?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It would be difficult to be in this place with my hon. Friend without having a passing acquaintance with the subject of hormone replacement therapy and the work undertaken at King's College hospital. She has identified the important contribution that the treatment can make. We spend £29·5 million in the health service on hormone replacement therapy and the number of prescriptions has tripled over the past 10 years. Although there is evidence of the contribution of HRT in

    149
    preventing cardiovascular disease, it is not conclusive. My hon. Friend must bear with us while further research is undertaken to assess the effects of HRT on those with osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister comment on the stark contrast highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee's report on coronary heart disease? In this country we spend£10 million on prevention and £500 million on the treatment of the biggest killer, which kills 3,000 people a week. That stark contrast in expenditure shows that the Government need to respond to the need for prevention.
    Since the Public Accounts Committee reported, what has the Department of Health done about monitoring the training of ambulance crews so that they can deal with the matter? The Minister must know that half the people who die from heart disease die in the first two hours. When the Department of Health gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, the Department was not monitoring the extra training being given to ambulance crews in that vital sector.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's recognition that prevention is better than cure. I hope that he will join us in carrying forward our strategies and priorities for health. Certainly, the prevention of heart disease—whether through the GPs' contract, the "Look after your Heart" campaign or environmental and lifestyle factors, especially smoking—is crucial. The hon. Gentleman will know that treatment is also costly. The number of heart transplants has risen from three to 295 in 10 years and the number of coronary artery bypass grafts has risen from 3,100 to almost 13,000.
    As for the training of ambulance crews, a great deal of work is being done to ensure that they are properly qualified and that defibrillators are available in ambulances.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners have opted to become budget holders; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that there are currently around 300 practices undertaking the preparatory work necessary to become fundholders from 1 April.
    Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of the internal market in the NHS is choice and that if it is to succeed, more general practitioners must be encouraged to take up budget holding and more hospitals, such as Wrightington on the edge of my constituency, must be encouraged to become national health trusts?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The benefits of both systems are becoming increasingly understood. Both systems are voluntary, but tremendous benefits are available to patients from the GP fund-holding scheme—a matter which I hope that Opposition Members will consider in due course, because it would be paradoxical if that aspect, which is aimed at giving help to patients and those most directly representative of them, should run into opposition from the Labour party.
    Mr. Bradley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the denial of interleukin-2 to a patient at Christie hospital
    150
    shows the problem of fixed budgets? In a written answer to me the Department of Health said that that drug could be used on a named patient. The drug and therapeutics committee said that the drug was not being prescribed not because it did not agree with it in principle but because
    "this could not be achieved within existing funding."
    That drug has not been allowed to Mrs. Kendrick and 50 others because the budget is overspent. Will the Secretary of State please review the position and ensure that life-saving drugs are available to all patients if they are about to die?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important matter, but the question was too long.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has dealt with the matter once. I repeat that the truth of the matter is that the drug and therapeutics committee of that hospital took an entirely sensible view that against the background of doubts about the drug—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will find that at the time the meeting took place the committee believed that the drug had a product licence whereas in fact it did not. Other, more expensive drugs are still being prescribed in the hospital.
    One doctor breaking ranks with his colleagues like that and taking an individual case is exactly the wrong way to make decisions about such matters and puts patients in a difficult position. We must stand on the clinical decisions of the committees in the hospitals. They have always had difficult decisions to make about alternative treatments. I am sure that the doctors in that hospital took the right decision, which was not to spend a large sum of money on a drug of doubtful efficacy.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Health will be carefully monitoring the effects of the NHS reforms. If he and his colleagues wish to remain closely in touch with what is happening at the grass roots, will he accept an invitation from Cumberland house, the largest general practice in my constituency, which has opted for budget-holding status, to discuss what it sees as the advantages and some of the expected problems of budget holding?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I visited my hon. Friend's constituency not very long ago, and very pleasant it was, too. I will try to fit another into my programme. I also visited two proposed budget-holding practices in East Anglia and south London, and I was very impressed by the enthusiasm shown at both. They will rapidly offer patients significant benefits.

    Nurse Prescribing
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to introduce a system of limited drug prescribing for qualified nurses; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We support the principle of nurse prescribing. The advisory group report on nurse prescribing and comments received during the consultation period identified a number of issues that require further work, which we are urgently carrying forward.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Although the Government's support for limited nurse prescribing is welcome, does the Minister

    151
    acknowledge the suspicion that the Government are using delaying tactics by establishing independent cost benefit analysis of some of the problems that the consultation process reveals? When will we know the terms of reference of that analysis, and may we have an assurance that if it suggests that additional costs will be incurred because people who do not currently receive prescriptions will do so in future, that will not be a deciding factor in vetoing the scheme's introduction?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I hope to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of such suspicions. The cost benefit analysis is important, and we hope to announce the details shortly. We will certainly make all the information available. However, there are other issues to be considered—such as deciding the precise formula, training, and the relationship between nurse and general practitioner prescribing. It is a complex matter, but the concept has strong support and we shall carry forward that work.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that many practice nurses would welcome a limited prescribing arrangement? With proper training and a sensible list of drugs, it should be possible for nurses to relieve their practitioners of regular prescribing, thus releasing them for other work. When that bright initiative is in place, will the nurses be encouraged to prescribe generically, as is done in hospitals?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes a strong case, for nurse prescribing, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), when he introduced his ten-minute Bill last week. Such an arrangement would help not only practice nurses but health visitors and district nurses. Many argue that they, too, could helpfully prescribe a limited range of items. With the greater emphasis being placed on community care, those other categories could certainly play a fuller part. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We are carrying forward that work and we want to see nurses play their part in prescribing.

    NHS Management Board
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he proposes to make changes to the powers of the NHS management board.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The NHS management board has not existed since 1989. I have no plans to make changes to the powers of the management executive that replaced it.
    Mr. Cousins: Will the Secretary of State ensure that before all the management board members dwindle away to take up high-paid jobs in self-governing hospitals, they do something about the plight of low-paid NHS workers? I refer particularly to blood transfusion workers in the northern region, who have waited two and a half years for a pay regrading under the guidelines issues by the management board. Everyone is praising those workers, rightly, at this time—but will the Secretary of State ensure that they get properly paid as well?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The management board has already dwindled away, because it no longer exists. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point and he is right to say that
    152
    there are too many low-paid people in the health service. In the negotiations on ancillary pay, we should try to shift attention towards the lowest-paid.

    Project 2000
    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current funding of Project 2000.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In this financial year, we have provided£30 million from central funding for the implementation of Project 2000. Next year, £71 million will be available.
    Mr. Porter: Although the Royal College of Nursing has expressed concern that the speed of funding does not match the desire to implement Project 2000 as soon as possible, will my hon. Friend confirm that when it is in place throughout the country, its training provisions will make nursing a most attractive profession for the future?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The East Suffolk, Great Yarmouth and Waveney nursing school in my hon. Friend's constituency was among those that received approval in the first wave. By the end of next year, half the nurses training will be in Project 2000 courses, by which time we shall have spent £109 million. That is a rapid rate of progress and, while I understand the desire to implement the scheme even faster, we are content with the speed at which Project 2000 courses—which lay the foundation for the professional nurses of the future—are introduced.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Minister aware that, laudable though the aims of Project 2000 are, some area health authorities are strapped for cash and are finding it difficult to identify proper campus sites for training nurses? Mid Glamorgan is a classic example. It is being forced to consider closing down the excellent rehabilitation centre at Talygarn to house nurses.
    Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend recently announced our plans to carry forward the work on the Peat Marwick McLintock report on nurse education and its management, and also the work of working paper No. 10. We understand that there needs to be proper organisation of nurse training within the regions. I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's area, but can say only that, within the English health authorities, good headway has been made in introducing Project 2000 and we are certainly considering nurse education in a broader context as we look to the future.

    Hospices
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds the Government have allocated to the voluntary hospice movement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: On 9 January I announced the allocation of an additional £16·96 million to health authorities in England for 1991–92 to enable authorities to increase the support that they give to hospice organisations. Last year that figure was £8 million.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that her figures confirm the Government's support for the increasing role that the voluntary hospice movement is playing, alongside the national health service? Will she continue to monitor

    153
    the costs of that movement, not least when it has to face unexpected costs such as national pay awards, and also when it loses money as a result of decisions taken by local Department of Social Security offices not to recognise voluntary contributions by patients to the running of those hospices?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks with authority about hospices, as the Trinity hospice provides a service for many of his constituents. Questions of income support are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security—it is not the case that the higher rate is paid for those for whom no charge is made. I understand that his hospice received in the order of £443,000 last year from the health authority and from money made available by central Government. That was a 25 per cent. increase on the help that it received the year before.
    Mr. Spearing: Can the Minister confirm that this welcome increase in grants to the hospice movement is partly based on the fact that it covers a wide spectrum of the public potential, and partly because it provides a unique service between hospice and home? Will she also confirm that, due to effects of the hospice upon the statutory service, any additional expenditure saves money elsewhere?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I have no doubt that any additional money is providing good value by ensuring a quality service. All of us would want to pay tribute to the voluntary hospice movement and the work that it has undertaken in pioneering a quality service for the dying. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify not only those in hospice beds, but the excellent work achieved by hospices at home. With the rapid expansion in the voluntary hospice movement, it is important to integrate planning, consideration and provision between the voluntary hospice movement and national health service provision. We are proceeding with work to ensure that the two develop in tandem and in a spirit of co-operation.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the voluntary hospice movement is most welcome in all parts of every constituency and that this further help from the Government will be welcomed by the movement?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for endorsing the warm tribute that all of us would want to pay to the hospice movement. The number of hospice beds has doubled in the past 10 years. As well as providing additional funding this year, we have decided to establish a research project into standards of palliative care and have also asked the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee to report back on the organisation of hospice care.

    Hospital Beds, Sheffield
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Trent regional health authority to discuss the hospital bed situation in the Sheffield health authority.
    Mr. Dorrell: When I next meet Sir Michael Carlisle I shall congratulate him on the fact that the number of in-patients treated by Sheffield health authority has increased by 52 per cent. since 1979. I shall also
    154
    congratulate him on the fact that in-patient waiting lists in Sheffield have fallen by nearly 14 per cent. in the last 12 months, while the number of people waiting for more than 12 months is down by 56 per cent. over the same period.
    Mr. Duffy: Nevertheless, 286 hospital beds have been for financial reasons lost in Sheffield over the past year. Red alerts continue, inevitably throwing a greater strain on surgical beds and waiting lists, out-patient facilities and the staff who must work the beds a good deal more intensively as a result. Does the Minister believe that the factual statment is a matter for congratulation?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that he is pushed back on press releases and on repeating already well-repeated formulae. What seems more important to me is the fact that Sheffield health authority has shorter waiting lists and is treating more patients than ever before.

    Gulf War Casualties
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to social services departments relating to the care of service men injured or disabled in the Gulf conflict; and if he will publish it.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Department has today written to social services departments setting out the arrangments made by the Ministry of Defence and the national health service for treating Gulf casualties. I have placed a copy in the Library.
    Mr. Rowe: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she realise that, in the event of a land war, there will probably be a number of seriously disabled casualties and that, when the national health service has done all that it can to stabilise their condition, some will require accommodatiton suitable for people in wheelchairs? Can my hon. Friend assure me that she will consult her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment to ensure that sufficient accommodation of that kind is provided—even if it is only temporary—so that the houses in which those unfortunate people must bring up their families can be assessed with a view to adaptation?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend will know, the Ministry of Defence has well-organised arrangements for the welfare and support of casualties and their families, but, as he pointed out, it is difficult to make predictions. It will be important for local authorities to keep in close touch with the MOD and, if necessary, the Department of the Environment. We shall certainly play our part in that.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that social services departments in London are currently under great pressure? They will all wish to provide the maximum resources and support for any Gulf casualties, but will the Minister make it clear to them that the Government will provide all the necessary resources?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I remind the hon. Gentleman that social services departments throughout the country have been given the largest increase in their standard spending assessments for 15 years—an increase of 23·5 per cent. We anticipate that local authorities will be able to respond to circumstances as they normally do in civil emergencies, and will play their part. As the letter makes clear, in the

    155
    first place they will need to work closely with the Ministry of Defence, and use their existing arrangements for supporting casualties and their families.

    Heart Disease
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives he is considering to combat coronary heart disease.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Combating coronary heart disease is one of our biggest challenges. That was why we launched the joint Department of Health/Health Education Authority "Look After Your Heart" programme in 1987. A new five-year strategy was recently launched.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of people who die daily in this country of premature coronary heart disease is equivalent to the number of passengers on a fully loaded jumbo jet? Does she realise that the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom are among the six countries with the world's worst record of coronary heart disease? How does she react to the report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on cholesterol testing, and, in particular, to the idea of giving general practitioners information about how to deal with patients with above-average cholesterol levels in their blood?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend rightly says, there are about 160,000 deaths each year and about 35 million working days are lost each year through coronary heart disease. Although our record for coronary heart disease was extremely severe, I can assure my hon. Friend that we have already beaten the World Health Organisation's health-for-all target of 15 per cent; we have seen a reduction of 24 per cent. in our coronary heart disease rates. We want to do very much better. The report by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on cholesterol testing is still being considered, but most certainly general practitioners, like the Health Education Authority and the health service generally, have a full part to play in combating this cause of early death.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that one of the most significant contributions that we can make to the reduction of coronary heart disease is to reduce the incidence of smoking in the population? What steps are the Government taking, therefore, to curtail the advertising of smoking and why are they seeking to gut the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley. East (Mr. Faulds), which would certainly significantly reduce smoking among children and the younger age group?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse the point made by the hon. Gentleman; something like 20 per cent. of the deaths are associated with smoking. We spend around £3 million campaigning to reduce smoking. It is deplorable that those under 16 should be sold cigarettes. I very much hope that we can take further steps to prevent this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is today consulting on the tobacco labelling directive, further wording and the attention that can be drawn to the fact that smoking damages health.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as the recession bites even deeper in all parts of the country, not least in the west midlands, the country will simply not buy the nonsense that it is all due to the Gulf war? Is he aware, further, that people recognise that the recession and the devastation that are occurring in so many parts of the country are due to the disastrous policies of a discredited Government who simply do not know from day to day where they are going?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly accept that there is a downturn in the economy and I have made that clear. But the hon. Gentleman must recognise that that downturn, in terms of investment and growth, comes from a very high level after a very lengthy period of growth. It is absolutely essential that we take the appropriate decisions now to ensure that we have a lower rate of inflation in the economy in the 1990s.
    Mr. Hayes: Is not my right hon. Friend greatly encouraged by the fact that British investment outstrips that in Germany, France and Italy? Does not he think that British industry is getting rather fed up with the Labour party continually saying that there is no end to the recession in sight and no economic good news? Does he agree that it is becoming the party of the abominable no-men?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, our investment record over recent years has been extremely good—a record unmatched elsewhere in the Community.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since it is clear that before too many weeks have passed the Government will be forced to cut interest rates, why do they not do it now and save British industries and British home buyers absolutely pointless pain?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not be so desperate. If he panics in opposition, what might he do in government?
    Mr. Kinnock: First, all observable panic is on the right hon. Gentleman's side of the House. Secondly, he will soon have a very good opportunity of finding out the strength of Labour in government.
    It is all very well for the Prime Minister to try to avoid the question. It is not his business which he spent a lifetime building up that is now threatened; it is not his factory that is facing closure; and it is not his mortgage that threatens to put him and his family out of their home. Is he not ashamed that Britain, alone of all the major industrial countries, is facing, under his Government, prolonged slump—extended slump—because of his policies?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has clearly overlooked the fact that—[Interruption.]—I shall come directly to the question. The right hon. Gentleman

    157
    has clearly overlooked the fact that there is a recession in a number of countries. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the importance of interest rates. Nobody wants interest rates to be unduly high, but we need to ensure that we have a low inflation economy. That is the means to ensure that we have it.
    Mrs. Peacock: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the many Gulf support groups that have been set up throughout the country to offer help and support to those families who have loved ones fighting in the Gulf. Will he join me today in sending best wishes to the two groups in my constituency, in Batley and Cleckheaton, who are doing a superb job?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to do as my hon. Friend requests. I am delighted by the number of Gulf support groups that have been set up around the country and I wish them all well.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Can the Prime Minister tell us how this war can have any moral or democratic purpose when British troops risk being slaughtered on the desert sands while the Kuwaiti royal family is gallivanting around the gambling dens and casinos, living it up? When the war is over and those Kuwaiti American stooges are back in power, with all their luxury, some British troops will be coming back to the dole queue, the poll tax and cardboard city. Is that the classless society that the Prime Minister talks about?
    The Prime Minister: I always thought that the hon. Gentleman was against the sort of actions that we have seen in Kuwait by the Iraqis. I am sorry that I am wrong.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: During my right hon. Friend's busy day I am sure that he will share my concern about the current proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy. Does he agree with me that we should not accept any reform that penalises the efficient British farmer, since that will not help the British consumer?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I share the view of the majority of hon. Members that further reform of the common agricultural policy is needed, but that must make European agriculture more, not less, open to market forces. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been making clear in Brussels, we shall very strongly resist any proposals that penalise the efficient farmer and, in so doing, place the burden upon consumers.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall the very welcome words of the Foreign Secretary at the weekend when he said that when the fighting is over we must be prepared to use the peace wisely? May I therefore put to him this proposition: if the United Nations provides the
    158
    authority for fighting the war in the Gulf, the United Nations should have the responsibility for building the peace that follows it. Does the Prime Minister agree?
    The Prime Minister: We shall certainly be discussing, both within the United Nations and beyond—with the Arab states that have the primary interest—what is necessary for the future security of the region.
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend noted that for the last four months inflation has been running at about 1·9 per cent. per annum? Does not that show that the Government's policy of reducing inflation is working? Does not such a policy offer a far more certain way towards eventual interest rate reductions than the soft option advocated by the Leader of the Opposition by way of a devaluation?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Soft options tend to lead to hard times. Our policies are succeeding in reducing inflation. As inflation comes down there will be the opportunity for sustained interest rate reductions.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Prime Minister agree with me—
    Mr. Dickens: I saw the hon. Lady on television.
    Mr. Speaker: So did I.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, in keeping with the spirit and purposes of the United Nations, consent to the allied military action is limited to ending Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, that peace and security in the region can be achieved by other means, and that those means must include the removal of nuclear and chemical weapons throughout the region?
    The Prime Minister: The present aims are set out perfectly clearly in Security Council resolutions. As to the second point in the hon. Lady's question, I think that it is a matter that everyone will wish to address after the conclusion of the conflict.
    Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever our party politics, we should all welcome the proposed abolition of the apartheid laws in South Africa? Does he agree also that, whatever we may think about that country's past, the best way to support its Government now is to help them make those changes as quickly as possible and to begin the process of reintegrating South Africa into the community of nations?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary to support the South African Government. But perhaps even more relevant is support for the people of South Africa—all of them. President de Klerk has made a truly massive move forward and it is now for the international community to respond. I hope very much

    159
    that it will do so. I have already discussed the matter with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth and with President Bush, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised it with European Community Foreign Ministers yesterday. I spoke about it this morning with Mr. Hawke, the Australian Prime Minister. He and I agree very strongly that the time has come to begin lifting the Commonwealth measures, especially the sports sanctions, particularly in the case of those sports that are integrated in South Africa. All in all, the announcement by President de Klerk was a most welcome move forward.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the Prime Minister aware that the naval base at Rosyth in Scotland employs 5,000 naval and civilian personnel? Is he aware that we have received ministerial assurances that, in the defence review, all the options will be considered impartially? Is he aware of a secret study report showing that there is an intention to close Rosyth in the shortest possible time? Does not he agree that it is disgraceful that at a time when our naval personnel are serving in the Gulf, their home base is being threatened in this way?
    The Prime Minister: No decision has been made to close Rosyth or any other naval base. We fully recognise the implications that closure would have for employment in the area. Those implications would be fully considered and examined before any such decision was taken.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that if President Bush raises the question of transatlantic air routes he—the Prime Minister—will sustain the Government's position, as outlined by the Secretary of State for Transport, in a very strong and sensible defence of British civil aviation?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is discussing these matters. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend will defend our interests very robustly.
    Mr. Eadie: How does the Prime Minister justify the salary of £225,000 per annum being paid to the new chairman of British Coal? Previous chairmen had a large industry and a comparatively small salary, whereas the present chairman is inheriting a very small industry and will have a large salary. Some of us suspect that his terms of reference are to make the industry smaller still.
    The Prime Minister: The gentleman concerned is being paid according to his ability.
    Mr. Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Moate: Reverting to reform of the common agricultural policy, does my right hon. Friend agree that if, for social reasons, the Germans and French wish to subsidise their small farmers, they should be free to do so?
    160
    As the British taxpayer will next year spend £4 billion on agricultural subsidies, apparently to produce inadequate incomes for farmers and excessively high prices for consumers, is not it time we considered repatriating agricultural policy so that we can decide what is best for Britain?
    The Prime Minister: The common agricultural policy is an established element of the European Community. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is an unsatisfactory one, and for that reason we are seeking to reform it.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is the Prime Minister aware that a measure of the underlying weakness of our economy is the fact that, excluding North sea oil, in the past three and a half years, at constant prices, we have had a trade deficit of £85 billion? Why does he believe that we can solve that problem with the same rate of exchange that caused it?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is selective in his criticism. He wholly forgets that we had eight successive years of growth, a period in which our investment has grown faster than that of Germany, Italy, France and anyone else in the European Community and we now have a wholly different industrial position from that which we inherited in 1979.
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Irvine: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of many firms operating in the financial services sector about the European Commission's draft directive on capital adequacy? Does he agree that some of the requirements imposed on capital adequacy are excessive, and will he make vigorous representations to ensure that, where appropriate, they are reduced?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend raises. He will know that firms that act purely as advisers are exempt from the requirements of the capital adequacy directive. We do not wish to see inappropriate or unnecessary capital requirements imposed on any United Kingdom investment firm.
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barron: Under the private Bill procedure, the Government have always accepted their neutrality to be one of support for a private Bill. Last Thursday night, the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill was defeated by the use of the payroll vote, including 10 members of the Cabinet, two of whom are members of the War Cabinet, which was suspended when that vote took place. What has changed the Government's mind? Was it political judgment or political spite?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should know that that was the individual decision of Members of this House.

United States Forces (United Kingdom)
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the position of United States nuclear capable forces in the United Kingdom.
The United States Government have been considering their arrangements for the forward support of their nuclear missile submarines and for the basing of their dual capable aircraft in the United Kingdom. These are being affected in the case of the submarines by the withdrawal of the Poseidon missile submarines, which removes the need for forward support in the north-eastern Atlantic area.
In respect of the dual capable aircraft, the implications of the changed situation of the Warsaw pact are particularly relevant. The United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Cheney, advised me of their proposals, which have since been discussed between us, and I can now advise the House of the outcome, which is being simultaneously made public in the United States.
First, as a result of a decision to accelerate the withdrawal from service of the United States Poseidon missile submarines, the United States Navy will, by the end of this year, no longer have a requirement for its submarine support facility at Holy Loch and this facility will therefore close. The exact date of closure has yet to be determined, but is likely to be some time in 1992.
Secondly, United States F111E and EF111 aircraft at present based at RAF Upper Heyford and F111F aircraft currently based at RAF Lakenheath will be withdrawn to the United States. The F111Fs will deploy to Upper Heyford for possibly some six weeks each year for exercises and training. These aircraft will remain committed to NATO and would return to basing in the United Kingdom in crisis or war. As envisaged for some time under NATO plans for the restructuring of alliance nuclear forces, United States F15E aircraft will be deployed to the United Kingdom, beginning in 1992; and it has now been decided that they are to be based at RAF Lakenheath. They will be deployed in smaller numbers than the F111 wing currently based there. These changes will be completed in 1994. The net effect will be fewer, but more modern dual capable aircraft in the United Kingdom.
Changes in the types of equipment needed to sustain our defences and to reflect the new international security situation have led to these different needs. The Government understand the reasons for these decisions, but, none the less, they will have significant local economic consequences.
The constituencies of a number of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will be affected. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is giving particular attention to the implications of the closure of the Holy Loch facility.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. The withdrawal of Poseidon missile submarines was expected and is welcome. Can he confirm that the closure of the facility is earlier than anticipated? Is there any possibility of its being used in future for the docking of United States hunter-killer submarines with dual capable cruise missiles?
162
The House notes that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give attention to the economic consequences of the closure. Can the Secretary of State for Defence ensure that public funds, both British and American, will be available for the regeneration of the Dunoon area? Can he say whether the more limited use of Upper Heyford is in response to local concern about aircraft noise? Can he tell the House whether the United States F15E will be fitted with SRAM(T) missiles and, if so, which other European nations in NATO will be offering similar facilities?
Mr. King: I can confirm that the closure is a little earlier than was originally envisaged. It is possible that there will be periodic visits but not the forward support position of United States naval tenders and possibly hunter-killer submarines.
The hon. Gentleman asked about assistance for the area. The United States, which has a number of direct employees at Holy Loch and the other bases, is advising them at the moment about redundancies and about its efforts to assist them to find alternative employment. As I have already advised the House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering the implications of the closure for Dunoon.
As to the weaponry that might be carried by the aircraft, there is no change from the present weaponry. There is no decision yet as to whether the United States will proceed with what is known as SRAM(T) or TASM. That is a matter for the future.
Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his announcement constitutes a reorientation of American efforts in Europe, but that it in no way decouples their commitment to Europe and to the United Kingdom?
Mr. King: I confirm that. The proposal to station the Fl5Es at Lakenheath confirms the Americans' continuing intention to maintain a capability in Europe. We welcome that continuing commitment—albeit at lower levels, which reflect the new security situation—to NATO and to stationing forces in Europe.
Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the fact that the change reflects the new security arrangements. However, does the Secretary of State realise that it will have a significant impact on the economy of the Holy Loch and of the Cowal peninsula? Over the years, the Navy and the local people have built up good relations. I pay tribute to United states personnel for maintaining those relations, which is demonstrated by the fact that every year approximately 200 United States naval personnel marry local girls. That shows that many of them consider the area to be home.
The Cowal peninsula has been designated a fragile area by the Highlands and Islands development board. Many people in the hotel and bed-and-breakfast business—to say nothing of the 119 taxis that ply their trade in Dunoon —will be put out of work. Will the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland give a commitment that they will come forward with financial assistance for the area, as they did at Dounreay? What is the future of Machrihanish airport?
Mr. King: I would want notice of the hon. Lady's final question. I am grateful for the responsible and sincere way in which she responded to what I recognise, in the

163
economic sense, must be disappointing news for her constituency and for those constituencies adjacent to it. I always try to be helpful, but I am not sure what I can do about the marriage prospects of so many girls in the Dunoon area. I take the point.
I pay tribute—and I know that the United States Government and the United States navy would also like to pay tribute—to the warm and friendly relations with the local people. The alliance has stood the world, NATO and Europe in such good stead. Personal relations locally play a big part in ensuring that the United States navy feels welcome. The navy will feel disappointed that it is leaving for other reasons. I take note of the hon. Lady's economic point.
Sir Hector Monro: I share the concern of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) about the effect of the closure at Holy Loch on the whole of the Clyde estuary. Do not the events in the Gulf and in eastern Europe, and the changes in this country, highlight the necessity for putting "Options for Change" on hold until the position is clarified, perhaps in a year's time, when we may look forward to greater civility and to easier decisions on Scottish defence facilities?
Mr. King: I know that my hon. Friend would not wish us to fossilise everything at this stage while we learn all possible lessons from the Gulf. There may be changes, economies and improvements that we can make which have nothing to do with the Gulf but which would be a sensible rationalisation. Part of the developments in "Options for Change" was an increased recognition of the importance of the reserves and of volunteer forces. My hon. Friend gives outstanding leadership to the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, so he will know of its splendid contribution in the Gulf.
Mr. John McFall: Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), the economic implications of the reorientation of defence will have an adverse affect in our area. The area is poorly off at present, as the Secretary of State realises, and the Ministry of Defence has a responsibility there. For example, in my constituency 16 per cent. of the land is owned by the Ministry of Defence. Will the Secretary of State urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to meet the Members of Parliament who are involved so that we can examine the economic implications of the decisions?
Mr. King: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments and his perhaps tensions over the announcement, because he has genuinely not supported a nuclear presence in the area, yet we all recognise the economic benefits that it has brought and the problems that the announcement will pose for many of his constituents.
The heads on my left are nodding vigorously. I take it from that that the request for a meeting has been granted.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the new deployment of the United States air force in this country affect the Americans' requirement for standby bases and, in particular, the future of Greenham Common in my constituency?
Mr. King: I have no comment to make on Greenham Common. As my hon. Friend knows, progress in the withdrawal of cruise missiles is continuing very satisfactorily. By May the last cruise missile will have left.
164
The proposal is that Upper Heyford should go on to a standby basis. One has certainly seen the advantage of that in the totally separate and different arrangements that can come from having facilities that can be available in time of need over RAF Lakenheath.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The "show us the flag" commitment to NATO apart, which I understand, what is the military role of the F15E aircraft?
Mr. King: It is a dual capable aircraft which can carry either conventional or nuclear bombs.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who, for years, have supported our nuclear deterrent capability and have welcomed United States service men and their role in that military activity will be saddened that technical change has meant that they will leave the Holy Loch? We have always recognised that military bases in Scotland were substantial employers and were good for the local economy. We want no crocodile tears from Opposition Members who, for years, have campaigned for the closure of the bases.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting clearly in the voice of Scotland the dilemma that many Opposition Members face. Some of them have faced it quite genuinely, but others less so.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State clarify his answer to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on the possible future use of Holy Loch, perhaps as a base for SSNs with cruise missiles? Does that exclude the possibility of its being used for United States Trident-type submarines in future? In terms of future possibilities for employment in Scotland, may we take it that the meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland is a clear departure from asking market forces to solve such problems? May we expect similar initiatives in relation to Rosyth?
Mr. King: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is no, but, within the sensible economic approach, my right hon. Friend will be anxious to see what can be done to help in the difficult circumstances. However, on the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am not ruling anything out, but I know of no proposals for a further base in the Holy Loch. I said that it might be used for periodic visits, but not as a base.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that many people will regard this as a disappointingly premature decision? Nevertheless, does he agree that the deployment of Polaris played a triumphant part in keeping the peace since 1945?
Mr. King: The nuclear deterrent has ensured the longest period of peace in Europe this century. It is in no way an abandonment of the deterrent. It is a recognition that the introduction of the Trident submarine means that the United States is able to deploy its deterrent without the need for a forward-operating base in the north-eastern Atlantic.
Mr. David Lambie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of people in Scotland will be happy about the decision by the American Administration as it marks the end of a 30-year campaign to get rid of the Polaris submarine base? Thirty years ago, my wife and I and my young family took part in the many

165
demonstrations at Dunoon, on the Holy Loch, protesting against the decision to set up the Polaris base, which was supported by Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister of a Conservative Government. Now that we have got rid of one American base in Scotland, when shall we get rid of the rest?
Mr. King: Many people, not only on this side of the House, may reflect that the continuing ability of the hon. Gentleman and his family to demonstrate in peace on such matters owes not a small amount to the continuing deterrence of NATO, which has held the peace in Europe all this time. The changes that I have announced today are not a departure from that policy. They mean that technical change and modernisation will enable the nuclear deterrent that has helped to keep the peace in Europe to help sustain that peace in future.
Mr. John Wilkinson: As this decision comes hard on the heels of the INF agreement and at a time of great international instability when there is hard evidence of circumvention of arms control agreements by the Soviets, will my right hon. Friend look long and hard at least at the European component of our alliance deterrent? The decision will mean a further reduction in the alliance's intermediate range nuclear capacity and we should look at least to an effective stand-off nuclear weapon for the Tornado.
Mr. King: My hon. Friend will recall that at the London summit the NATO leaders agreed that the alliance must maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe and kept up to date where necessary. My announcement today is precisely an implementation of that. I know that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree that modernisation of the deterrent—the submarine and aircraft deployments reflect that clearly—is an important way of ensuring that we maintain the strength of Europe and the NATO defence of Europe.
Mr. John McWilliam: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement today raises enchanting spectres from our youth of our first visits to the Holy Loch when we were arrested on the pier and then acquitted because we had bought tickets? Does he agree that to fit the F15s, which are to be based in the United Kingdom, with TASMs would be a major change in the NATO capability facing the Soviet Union? Will he undertake to ensure that if they are so equipped a statement will be made to the House?
Mr. King: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises that. I thought that there was general support across the House for the NATO policy of keeping up to date an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman departs from that, but I believe that it is a sane and sensible policy in the present uncertain state of the world.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: While my right hon. Friend's statement is warmly welcomed on this side of the House and, for that matter, on the other side of the House, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is growing anxiety, particularly among Conservative Members and in the United States, about the difficulties
166
which the United States has experienced in implementing CFE and, indeed, the continuing START nuclear talks? Is he further aware that there is strong evidence of circumvention in the Soviet Union and that there are increasing difficulties with verification? Can he reassure the House that the steps that he has announced have been taken in full knowledge of that deterioration of relations between the United States and the Soviet Union?
Mr. King: I take seriously the point made by my hon. Friend. We are worried about some of the evidence and the need for effective verification. The changes that I have announced will take place over a period. In the case of the submarines, there is an enhancement of capability; there is no reduction of capability. The much greater range of the Trident submarine simply makes unnecessary the use of a forward operating base. The situation in relation to the aircraft applies progressively until 1994 and obviously the United States will want to keep carefully under review its commitment to NATO against the background of the developing situation. But modernisation is important, and that issue is dealt with in the statement.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his statement today may be only the first of many similar announcements to be made in the future under the twin influences of a reduction in east-west tension and technological advance in the sphere of defence procurement? Do not defence decisions of this kind underline the need to maintain and strengthen the political links between Europe and the United States?
Mr. King: People who unwisely thought that somehow NATO could be wound up and that there was no longer any need for United States-stationed forces in Europe have quieter voices now, bearing in mind the importance—including against the worrying background in the Soviet Union—of ensuring that we do not abandon the effective defence of NATO in a premature sense in what could be difficult circumstances. Therefore, I very much agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is understandable that the American taxpayer should seek to carry less of NATO's burden and to achieve sensible savings through the modernisation of equipment, the Soviet Union continues to sustain, and in some cases even enlarge, overwhelming superiority in most categories of nuclear weapons and in a number of categories of conventional weapons, including submarines and most types of aircraft?
Mr. King: That is true and it draws out clearly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) concerning worry about verification and about what still remains a very substantial military capability.
Mr. Brian Wilson: As one who stood on Dunoon pier 30 years ago, may I ask the Secretary of State to accept my unqualified welcome for his announcement today? Will he look forward with me to the Holy Loch being returned to a purpose more consistent with its name? Does he recognise that during those 30 years the economy of the Holy Loch area has been completely skewered by the United States presence there, the area having been used and abused by the American navy for its own purposes? Is he further aware that other

167
employment opportunities there have been neglected because of the false economy that has been created around the American military presence? Will he give an assurance that assistance will be provided by the British and American Governments to restore a proper, stable economy to that part of Scotland?
Mr. King: I much preferred the account that was given by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) of the relationship between the local people and the United States navy in the use of the base—
Mr. Wilson: I come from there.
Mr. King: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman comes from the area, but I still preferred the account given by the hon. Lady. I do not know whether a campaign is starting on the Opposition Benches to prove how utterly futile and pointless it was to demonstrate 30 years ago. It did precisely nothing. How much more sensible it would have been to have left it to a sane and reasonable decision to be taken by the Government 30 years later, when the job had been done.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I have called hon. Members whose constituencies are directly affected. If not, I shall certainly call those with a constituency interest. I appeal for brief and not repetitious questions.
Mr. James Paice: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Lakenheath is on the edge of my constituency and has a widespread effect on many parts of the area. The news he has announced today will be received with mixed feelings—with pleasure that it has been found possible to make the changes, but with concern about the effect on the local economy. Can he give more information about the changes at Lakenheath, particularly about the level of reduction in American personnel, civilian and service, remembering the effect that that will have on the economy of the area?
Mr. King: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. I said that I could not give details today. I can only say that the changes will begin in 1992 and that it is intended that they will be completed by 1994. The present proposals will mean moving from one wing to slightly less than one wing at Lakenheath. Although there will be fewer aircraft there, I cannot advise my hon. Friend of the precise effect that that will have on the numbers involved. Now that the announcement has been made, I appreciate that further discussion will occur and that my hon. Friend will wish to be involved in that process.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Minister explain in what circumstances the United States may want to send cruise missiles into Holy Loch if the base is closed? Will he describe in what circumstances he would think it fit for cruise missiles to visit Holy Loch—or have not his American partners told him yet?
Mr. King: I am not sure why the hon. Lady asked that question. I may have misunderstood the point made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) but I know of no proposal to base anything in Holy Loch in future. I am unaware whether there may be periodic visits, but that is a possibility.
Mr. Stephen Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while his announcement is welcome in general terms, it could have implications for the Government's defence review, "Options for Change"? Does he further agree that, as the review was instigated before the change in the Soviet policy towards the Baltic states and before the outbreak of the Gulf war, Conservative Members are concerned that the Government should seek to reflect that in any changes made?
Mr. King: I can give that assurance. I, of all people, am concerned about that because I saw at first hand some of the problems we faced when making our contribution to the Gulf. Any lessons that we have been, and are, learning will be taken into account when considering "Options for Change".
Mr. George Foulkes: I join my colleagues in welcoming the end of the menance in the Clyde, which will also be welcomed by the fishermen, who constantly find submarines bumping into their boats or caught in their nets. We now know that 30 years ago Harold Macmillan and his Cabinet wanted the site to be not at Holy Loch but at Loch Linnhe, in the north of Scotland. However, President Eisenhower successfully insisted that it should be sited at Holy Loch. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the relationship between the two Governments has changed in the past 30 years and that if there were to be a new facility the decision would be made by the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence and not by the United States Secretary of State for Defence?
Mr. King: I certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am interested in that bit of history, about which I was quite unaware. I am unable to compare the relative relationships between the Eisenhower and Bush Administrations and the British Government. The present relationship between the American and British Governments is extremely close and co-operative and we shall take as constructive an approach as possible.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend knows that Portland is occasionally used for rest and recreation by American submarine crews visiting this country. Will the closure of Holy Loch increase the incidence of people coming to visit and the need to use the naval dockyard for emergency repairs to Trident submarines and others?
Mr. King: I cannot comment on that. I note my hon. Friend's interest and I know of his loyal support for Portland. I know that those visiting Portland will receive a warm welcome.
Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of state agree that what are likely to be continuing reductions in the United States force levels underline the case for Europe to seek a closer defence co-operation and not to waste time chasing the moonbeam of a European defence force?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's question takes us a little wider, but it emphasises that while the changes are being made by the United States, that country is determined to maintain and modernise its contribution of stationed forces in Europe. That element of the announcement will be widely welcomed.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the F15Es are being based at Lincoln, may we have the clear assurance that the legally significant assurances given by our country in 1978 that a nuclear state would never attack a non-nuclear state are still confirmed? Will the Secretary of State say something about the dual key system that is apparently still in operation, whereby the Americans cannot use nuclear weapons without the clear understanding of No. 10 Downing street?
Mr. King: That is precisely the point, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised it. On 12 May 1983, my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister said:
"The effect of the understandings and the arrangements for implementing them is that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister."—[Official Report, 12 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 433.]
Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State advise the House of the estimated loss of jobs arising from the closure? As the American submarines have been the cause of many serious accidents and damage to fishing boats from Northern Ireland in the Irish sea, will the right hon. Gentleman, in the last few months of the operation of the American submarines, make a further request to the authorities to ensure better co-operation with fishing fleet in the Irish sea so that there are no further accidents in the last remaining months?
Mr. King: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the closure of the base at Holy Loch which will result in the loss of 80 full-time United States-employed United Kingdom civilian jobs, 65 part-time jobs and about 20 Ministry of Defence civilian jobs, mainly with the Ministry of Defence police. The serious economic consequences will result from the departure of some 2,000 American employees with some 1,600 dependants. The loss of economic benefits to the local community has been estimate at about $50 million. That is a significant matter. The closure will lead to a reduction of submarine traffic in the Irish sea.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Do the British and United States Treasuries have contingency plans? The Secretary of State has said nothing about finance. What are his plans?
Mr. King: I referred in my statement to the particular interests of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is aware of these matters, to which he is giving particular attention. I also referred to the fact that a number of people involved are United States employees and the United States will wish to treat with them as fairly as possible. The United States is conscious of the good relations that have existed between them and it is grateful for that. It is conscious of the economic consequences that will flow from the decisions and is anxious to see how it can help in that respect.
Mr. Thomas Graham: My constituency is one of those that faces on to Holy Loch, and I can assure the Secretary of State that there will be much disappointment at the closure of the base and its terrible economic consequences on the surrounding areas. Others will be delighted to see the closure of the base for many reasons, one of which is that the River Clyde was once famous for its holidaymakers, and I am convinced that once the base has closed, and if the Government take
170
an urgent look at the problems of the Clyde, thousands of people may once again return to spend their money in one of the most beautiful parts of the world, and the Americans will follow them. Will the Secretary of State urgently meet his colleagues in Scotland to discuss the economic crisis which will follow the closure of the base?
Mr. King: Having lived and worked in that area, and knowing the Clyde well, I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the beauty of the area and its potential for tourist development. The closure of the base has serious economic implications and I imagine that the people involved will have a lot of sympathy for the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman than with those expressed by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who did not seem to care whether they had a job or not.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) did not say that good relations were built up—she said that people got married? The Secretary of State seems to be confused in his thinking. Can he explain to a simple soul like me, who 30 years ago was too young to stand on the pier, why he feels that it is so important to keep nuclear weapons in Britain to secure the peace in Europe and, conversely, so important to get rid of them in the middle east to secure the peace in the middle east?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Soviet Union possesses a massive nuclear arsenal. In the judgment of many—and I personally believe this very strongly—peace has been kept for the longest period this century in Europe because of the existence of the nuclear deterrent. No doubt I shall have an opportunity to explain this point at greater length to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ron Brown: The Secretary of State should come clean. The withdrawal of American forces from Holy Loch has nothing to do with the peaceful intentions of the American ruling class. It is all to do with economics, and with the fact that America is the biggest debtor country in the world. That has been made clear by George Bush's budget. Can we help him along the way? Can we get George Bush on his nuclear bike so that all American forces in Britain are withdrawn? That is the will of the British people and the Secretary of State can put that to the test by holding a referendum. The peace movement is growing throughout the country and it will develop to challenge the Government—and even to challenge the Labour party.
Mr. King: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman invites me to come clean. For all the serious economic problems that America faces—and there is no doubt about its deficit—when it is challenged, and when the American people have a duty and a responsibility to take action, they do not hesitate. That is clear from my statement today. The Americans are not turning their back on Europe. They are not abandoning their NATO commitments. They are modernising their forces and continuing to honour their commitment to NATO and to the defence of Europe.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government have belatedly caught up with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and have accepted their arguments, even if it is rather late in the day? Does he agree that we must move to get rid of other

171
nuclear weapons? As a matter of interest, do the Government have a right of veto over the use of United States nuclear capable planes based at Upper Heyford and Lakenheath? Has the agreement made in October 1951 between President Truman and Prime Minister Attlee—that there would be joint decision-making only in the light of prevailing circumstances—been altered? Is there a specific agreement giving a right of veto? If so, will the Secretary of State direct me to it?
Mr. King: It would be extraordinarily silly of the hon. Gentleman to view my statement today as a victory for those who protested against a nuclear base at Holy Loch. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is the intention of the United States to maintain its missile submarines and nuclear deterrent. It happens that the new Trident submarines have a much bigger range, and do not need a forward operating base in the eastern Atlantic.
The precise statement that I made to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) also answers the hon. Gentleman's question. I will read it again. It confirms that
"no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister."
I trust that the hon. Gentleman does not want to challenge that, and that he thinks it is right. I give that assurance to the House.

Point of Order
4.13 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to raise, under Standing Order No. 20, the subject of the United Nations Secretary-General distancing himself from the coalition?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that I cannot grant the application that he wants to make today. I know that he feels strongly about the matter in question, but I must protect the spirit of the rules that cover Standing Order No. 20 applications. If the procedure is abused, it will put in jeopardy a prized opportunity for Back Benchers to raise legitimate requests for an emergency debate in prime time.
I remind the House of what I have said in the past. The right to make a three-minute submission to me on a new and urgent matter at 3.30 pm represents a valuable and very important opportunity for Back-Bench Members. I am anxious that it should not be devalued or threatened, as might be the case if the procedure were to be abused. I hope that I shall always have the support of the House in declining to hear applications that do not fall into that category.

BILL PRESENTED
  FOOTBALL (OFFENCES)
  Sir John Wheeler, supported by Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Keith Vaz, Dr. Mike Woodcock and Mr. Tom Pendry, presented a Bill to define offences and prescribe penalties in respect of certain conduct at football matches; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

Domestic Lettings
4.14 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law to relax certain requirements upon a private householder taking in not more than two lodgers, in respect of taxation, the unified business rate, and the provisions of the Rent Acts; and for connected purposes.
My Bill will concern itself with small domestic lettings and will tackle the pressing problem of homelessness, which is a blot on our society. Today in The Times a letter from Shelter claims that homelessness is
"the result of too little affordable rented accommodation."
The tragedy to my mind is that homelessness exists while there is a surfeit of accommodation. There is plenty of accommodation in private houses, but people will not rent it out. My proposal would unlock this housing so that homeless people could come in from the cold.
There are many reasons why people find themselves homeless. A common reason is that young people who have always wanted to leave home and set up on their own cannot find anywhere to live nowadays. Once upon a time one could look in any local newspaper, or in the local sweet shop, and see lots of advertisements for bedsits or furnished flats to let. People with rooms to spare were willing to let them for a modest sum. There was much competition, which kept prices down. Sometimes letting helped to pay the landlord's mortgage or rent. Sometimes the family had left home and people felt that they would like a little company. Many a lonely young person, coming to the city, found a surrogate mother in the company of a friendly landlady—someone to keep an eye on him, and someone to come home to in the evening and to tell about the events of the day.
The landlord or the landlady was rarely too worried about getting a lot of money in advance. Often they would take people in for a week's rent only and they rarely wanted references. They would judge people at face value and let them into their homes. If the arrangements did not work out they would give notice, but that was not a tragedy because there was always somewhere else just down the road where one could find alternative accommodation.
Tenants were not harmed by that liberal, liberated system. That is what happens when there is a free market in any service—there is always a supply to meet demand.
Even young couples, after they got married, frequently started married life in a bedsit or in a furnished flat. It enabled them to save money and build up the capital to buy a place of their own.
Something has happened which has destroyed people's willingness to let parts of their houses. The Rent Acts are still a spectre facing people who rent out homes, as is the prospect of the taxman breathing down their necks wanting part of the rent, or of complicated accounts to reduce the amount of liability, or of the local town hall and the prospect of being re-rated.
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) who, when he was Minister for housing, liberated furnished lettings, especially rooms to let, and went a long way towards making the landlord more comfortable. Nowadays, if a landlord has to give notice to a tenant in a private household, he does not have to go to the county court, but can simply serve notice and the tenant has to go. If a

173
landlord has fewer than six lodgers, he is not liable to be re-rated as a boarding house. Many liberal measures have been introduced, but the popular terror still exists in the public's mind about being a landlord.
Instead of tackling the causes, we tend to spend more money on providing hostel or bed-and-breakfast accommodation, at enormous expense to the taxpayer.
I talked to many homeless people in the Westminster area when I was a member of Westminster city council and deputy chairman of the housing committee. When I asked people what they wanted, they told me that they did not want a room in a hostel, however nice it might be. They wanted a room in a home—somewhere to leave their belongings, an address, somewhere where they could lock the door and could call home. That is what we should be aiming for, rather than providing more hostel accommodation. The Government are spending £5 million a week on many of those cold and friendless alternatives to homes in the private rented sector.
Although Ministers agree privately that what we are up to is a kind of madness, we are still afraid to tackle the cause of the blockage. I believe that the cause is the caricature of the private landlord as a Rachman—a caricature which the Labour party always drags out as a means of boosting public housing, public spending and public control. The other bogeyman for the would-be landlord is the Treasury, which regards letting rooms as a black economy activity, and wants every last farthing that it can get out of the rent.
The Department has already done a great deal to liberate the housing sector. I want it to go a step further and stand up for homeless people and against the bullyragging nonsense that we hear from the Labour party. I want it to reassure people that if they let their accommodation, they will receive a bonus. They could take in up to two lodgers and make £100 in rent—which is none the less much less than we pay for a hostel or bed-and-breakfast places. If the arrangement did not work out, landlords could part company with their tenants—as they can now—without having to go through the awful trauma of rent tribunals and county courts.
I am sure that that would liberate an enormous amount of housing, without adding a penny to the taxpayer's bill. Moreover, it would provide a surrogate, or alternative, for the young, the not-so-favourably disposed, the unemployed and the friendless, in a warm home where they would receive the support and company that they probably expected originally from their own families.
4.21 pm
Mr. Michael Spicer: I oppose the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
My hon. Friend's heart is, of course, in the right place; the problem is that her Bill has been so narrowly drafted that it does not, in my view, adequately address the problem that she has so properly brought to our notice. In my hon. Friend's immortal words, her aim is to bring lodgers back to the bosom of the landlady. That is a laudable aim. We know exactly what my hon. Friend means and exactly what she wants: she wants, as she said, to reduce the pressure on housing, especially for single
174
people. She wants to do that by giving a boost to private renting, which always used to be a major source of accommodation—especially for single people.
I fear—and I know that my hon. Friend shares my view—that the problems of private renting go much deeper and are much more profound than the difficulties faced by those wishing to find private shared accommodation, although their difficulties are, of course, an inextricable part of the wider problem. Private renting in this country—unlike private renting in any other country in the western world—has collapsed. In the 1950s it represented about 50 per cent. of all accommodation; today it represents about 7 per cent. At the same time, there are about 600,000 empty private sector houses, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Many are not rented out because their owners are literally terrified of the consequences of doing so.
Thirty years of socialist denigration of the landlord and landlady has taken its toll. As a result, the potential penalties of renting out their property, or one room of it, are considered by most people far to outweigh the meagre rewards. My hon. Friend stressed that, and the implications for the use of the national housing stock are extremely serious. If even one third of the empty private sector housing were put out for rent many of the present pressures on housing would be removed without a single new building.
I know that in the current mood, we are not really allowed to be confrontational and far be it from me to disturb the tranquillity of the House, but I should like to make one small, innocent, well-meaning observation about the socialist party's policy towards private renting. Its programme, now printed formally in its policy documents, of reintroducing total security of tenure to new as well as to old lodgings, and presumably thus to shared lodgings, would, if implemented, finally kill the private rented sector stone dead with or without the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has brought before the House today.
Labour's policy is already acting as a serious deterrent to new landlords coming forward and it is directly and detrimentally affecting the position of thousands of people looking for homes.
I should have liked to see in my hon. Friend's Bill, with all its excellent intentions for the provision of extra accommodation, some mention of something that she herself has championed in recent years—the future deregulation of tenancies. We should at least ensure that people who succeed to existing regulated tenancies should do so through contracts freely entered into by them and their landlords, as is the case now for assured tenancies and for shortholds. It is also necessary to treat the operations of landlords for tax purposes in the same way as any other business would be. Their capital expenditure should certainly benefit from roll-over rules. I believe that it would have been better if my hon. Friend's Bill had addressed that point.
My hon. Friend has done the House a great service by raising the matter of privately rented accommodation. I want her to reapply her genius to the wider context in which lodging must be seen, take this Bill away and bring back an amended version, perhaps more along the lines of the one that she presented to the House some months ago.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is that the hon. Lady be given leave to bring in the Bill. Those in favour say aye; to

175
the contrary no. The hon. Member who has spoken against the Bill must follow his objection by recording a no call. I think that the ayes have it.
Question agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?
Mrs. Gorman: Mr. David Shaw, Sir Marcus Fox, Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Michael Spicer, Mr. Barry Field, Mrs. Rosie Barnes and myself, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is possible for the hon. Member who has just opposed the Bill to be also listed as a sponsor of the Bill. Perhaps his name could be deleted.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. David Shaw, Sir Marcus Fox, Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Barry Field and Mrs. Rosie Barnes.

Domestic Lettings

  DOMESTIC LETTINGS
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law to relax certain requirements upon a private householder taking in not more than two lodgers, in respect of taxation, the unified business rate, and the provisions of the Rent Acts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
  4.29 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often referred to the need to protect our procedure against abuse. Today we have had the introduction of a ten-minute Bill. Normally, those who object do so out of conviction, because they totally oppose what the hon. Member presenting the Bill is trying to do. Not in all cases, but normally, as you know, the opposition comes from the other side. The hon. Gentleman who opposed the Bill today obviously had no real conviction. That was shown by the fact that his name was included as a supporter of the Bill.
  I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we have witnessed is a mockery and a denial of the opportunity for Opposition Members to oppose the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). That mockery of our procedure should not be repeated.
  Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it should not be repeated. The purpose of speaking against a Bill is to raise objections, not to support a Bill that has been put before the House. [Interruption.] I do not know that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) was doing that today. It is not an opportunity to have a second bite at a ten-minute motion. Moreover, interruptions are not allowed during proceedings on a ten-minute Bill. The procedure should be kept pure. In future, we should proceed as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) suggests.

Orders of the Day

  Statutory Sick Pay Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House that all the Lords amendments should be considered together.
  4.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I share your understanding, Mr. Speaker, that it would seem to be for the convenience of the House that all the Lords amendments should be discussed together, but in the interests of the rules of procedure perhaps I should move formally that the House agrees with Lords amendment No. 1.

  Statutory Sick Pay Bill
    Clause 1

      REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNTS RECOVERABLE BY EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE PAID STATUTORY SICK PAY
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out ""so paid"" and insert ""by making""
      Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the remaining Lords amendments.
      Mr. Newton: This small Government amendment is designed to pave the way for others. It was accepted in another place, but it does not form the major focus of our debate. I shall seek to discuss the issues raised by all the amendments, including the Government amendments to one of the Lords amendments.
      In setting the case before the House, it is sensible for me to remind hon. Members that the Bill deals with only two aspects of a much wider package of changes, some of which will come before the House in other ways. However, they will need to be discussed and considered as a whole. I am sure that that will seem to be a sensible procedure both to the Opposition and to my hon. Friends.
      The Bill proposes to reduce the rate of reimbursement for employers' payments of statutory sick pay from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. It also—this is a small matter but it should at least be noted—ends the arrangements whereby employers are able to claim reimbursement of the national insurance contributions paid on statutory sick pay. That arrangement was introduced only in 1985 after the introduction of statutory sick pay and has not worked very well in practice. Some 25 per cent. of the compensation due under that heading does not appear to be claimed, despite the various efforts which have been made to draw it to the attention of employers.
      Alongside the proposals in the Bill, we have also proposed to leave the higher rate of statutory sick pay unaltered, at £52·50 per week, while increasing the lower rate from £39·25 to £43·50 and to extend the earnings bands to which the lower rate applies.
      Another point—perhaps the most important from the point of view of the balance of our debate, and one that has not been given its due weight in much that has been said and written on these matters in recent weeks—is that

      177
      we have proposed a significant reduction in the national insurance contributions payable by employers, weighted towards giving greater help in particular to the employers of those who are less well paid, who tend disproportionately to be small employers. We shall undoubtedly return to that point.
      Taking all three elements together, we have what may broadly be described as about £350 million on one side of the account—mostly through reduced expenditure—and £250 million on the other side, in the form of reduced employers' contribution rates, leading to a net overall effect for employers of around £100 million.
      To put that figure in context, I should make two main points. First, total labour costs in our economy are about £300 billion. Thus, the £100 million represents about 0·03 per cent.—less than one twentieth of 1 per cent. of the labour costs of industry as a whole.
      The second is a rather wider point—that this very limited change should be seen in the light of trends well established over many years. Support for those in employment who are sick for short periods has, as a matter of experience and observation, moved increasingly from being something for which the state alone has been responsible to being a partnership between the state and employers, with the latter taking an increasingly important share.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: My right hon. Friend has stated the costs as percentages of employers' overall costs. Another way of putting it is to say that the average cost to an employer is only £5 per annum per employee. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is surprising that, as the cost is so low, there has been so much opposition to the Bill? Does not the director of the CBI seem to be arguing about mere bantam feed?
      Mr. Newton: I have not done precisely the calculation that appears to underlie my hon. Friend's point, but I think that its basic thrust is right. Of course, one must allow for the fact that a significant number of employees—I am thinking, in particular, of part-time employees who deliberately keep their earnings below the lower limit—will not qualify for statutory sick pay at all. Perhaps that affects my hon. Friend's figures to a small extent.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: We should be very careful about using averages. As the incidence is unequal, the burden on companies will be disproportionate. That is the essence of the Bill and of the opposition to it.
      Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is seeking to lead me on. I promise that it will not be long before I come to discuss the small employers, who, obviously, are less able to be certain that the averages will apply to them. On the whole, it is true that the larger a firm or undertaking, the more likely it is that the averages will apply in its case. I understand well that that is the cause of some of the concern about small employers that has led to a number of the proposed amendments. At an earlier stage the Government gave a clear-cut undertaking that we would try to meet the concern expressed on behalf of small employers about averages not applying to them. I am seeking, with some amendments to the Lords amendments, to fulfil that undertaking.
      Sir Robert McCrindle: Before the Secretary of State moves on to what I know will be the kernel of the debate—the effects of these measures on small companies—will he take on board the fact that some large companies, for which, I understand, there may be less sympathy, are faced with a very considerable additional bill? I am told that Marks and Spencer will have to pay £600,000 extra. I think it is fair to say that there was a clear implication that Government reimbursement of 100 per cent. of the cost was the basis on which the original scheme was introduced. Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be wise to say just a few words about the movement away from that basic principle, which caused some of us to support the original scheme some years ago?
      Mr. Newton: I am very happy to say a few words about that matter. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that a point along the lines of that which my hon. Friend has just raised was made by a number of people in business. Naturally, as a consequence, I have had a very careful search made of everything that was said in the House and of any other traceable comments that were made when these proposals were being discussed very nearly a decade ago. I have been quite unable to find any commitment of the kind that my hon. Friend implies existed. Moreover, during that decade there have been two changes of Parliament.
      It is well understood that Governments must take a new look at circumstances as they change. Two of the changes in circumstances to which I was about to refer are the spread of occupational sick pay schemes and the rising pressure of other demands. My hon. Friend is noted for his support for demands for expenditure on forms of social security which employers cannot possibly be expected to provide.
      Mr. Michael Meacher: The Secretary of State says that he has checked the sources of this commitment. Has he examined the proceedings of the Conservative party conference? Is he aware that on 15 October 1981 the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), his predecessor, gave a clear and unequivocal commitment that there would be 100 per cent. reimbursement? As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) said, that was the basis on which the original scheme was introduced. Is he unaware of that, or is the Conservative party conference not a serious public body?
      Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend's remarks were directed to the outcome of the negotiations on the original statutory sick pay scheme. My noble Friend Lord Jenkin, who was responsible for most of the negotiations prior to the introduction of SSP, has not suggested any express or implied commitment that there would never be a stage at which, regardless of developments surrounding occupational sick pay schemes or other demands on the social security system, a future Government would consider the balance of provision. Indeed, it would not have been possible to make such a meaningful commitment that would stand for ever.
      Mr. Frank Field: Is not the Secretary of State trying to confuse two issues to his own advantage—first, whether a commitment was given and where it was given and, secondly, whether events have moved on since and whether other developments have overridden the

      179
      original commitment? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) put to him? Was that commitment given to the Conservative party conference?
      Mr. Newton: I have already answered the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I cannot add to what I have said.
      Mr. Frank Field: Yes or no.
      Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been developments in the intervening period. One of the developments, to which I have referred several times, has been the continuing growth of occupational sick pay schemes. The latest survey in 1988 showed that they are used by employers responsible for more than 90 per cent. of the work force. At the same time—the hon. Member for Oldham, West has tended, not to disguise, that would be unfair, but not to acknowledge this point significantly clearly—there has been particularly rapid growth in occupational sick pay schemes for manual workers. The old caricature was that staff had occupational sick pay schemes but manual workers were left to cope for themselves. There has been a significant change in that respect since the mid 1970s.
      Ms. Clare Short: I wish to take the Secretary of State back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who claimed that the cost to employers is small because although there is a drop in reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. there is an offsetting cut in national insurance. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is a one-off and that there is no promise for future years? This is an insidious proposal which, in time, will cost employers more and more. Will he put that on the record?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Newton: I do not see how it can cost more. Contribution rates are calculated as a percentage of earnings. As earnings rise, the value of the reductions in national insurance contributions will rise. I am not in a position to speculate about decisions on future rates of statutory sick pay, or on what employers would do if they chose to go further in the development of occupational sick pay schemes. The Bill seeks to fix a proportion of the amount of statutory sick pay which employers would be expected to shoulder for themselves rather than pass on to the state and a reduction in national insurance contributions, which, as long as percentage rates of contributions remain unchanged, will rise in value to employers with the natural growth in earnings. I hope that that is reasonably clear.
      Mr. Allen McKay: Employers' organisations calculate that it will cost employers £100 million to implement the scheme. Is the Secretary of State saying that that is untrue?
      Mr. Newton: On the contrary. A fairly substantial paragraph in my speech, which I probably read some minutes ago because I willingly accepted several interventions, related that to the total of employers' labour costs in the economy. There is roughly a £100 million gap between one side of the account and the other. That is equivalent to less than one twentieth of 1 per cent. of labour costs in the economy.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: The Minister has repeated the claim that was made in the last debate that 91 per cent. of the work force are covered by occupational pension schemes. The IFF Research Ltd. report says something quite different—that 91 per cent. of employers have sick pay schemes that cover some employees in some circumstances. That is all, and the percentage covered is nearer 48 per cent. or 50 per cent.
      Mr. Newton: I think that my remarks were accurate and reflected what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
      Ms. Short: The Secretary of State is being economical with the truth.
      Mr. Newton: If the hon. Lady, from a sedentary position, is accusing me of being economical with the truth I shall do my best to restrain what would normally he my natural irritation.
      Some of the points towards which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) seems to be edging run the risk of being somewhat misleading. Of course there are exclusions from occupational sick pay schemes, but they are not, on the whole, exclusions of the old-fashioned gentleman versus players kind. There is increasing coverage of those in manual occupations. The exclusions from occupational sick pay schemes usually relate to a brief period at the start of a new job. There may be a qualifying rule that an employee must be with the firm three or six months before qualifying. That is not unreasonable, and as a matter of established record people tend to experience little sickness in the early months of a new job.
      The other main exclusion is part-time employees. The Opposition have tended to place too much weight on this point—I can see where their argument is leading—because, by and large, the earnings of part-time employees qualify them only for the lower rate of statutory sick pay, which is being fully uprated and which was fully uprated last year. If I get the drift of where the hon. Member for Newport, West is seeking to take me, which is a bit aside of the main thrust of the debate, he will see that I do not really agree with what he is trying to say.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend seems to he linking the reduction in national insurance contributions with the statutory sick pay proposal. As I understand what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said in earlier discussions, there is no link: they stand independently of each other. It is therefore misleading of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to link them together as though it is a cost reduction. He might just as well cite those who have saved on the uniform business rate as being better able to make a payment on a different account. That link is misleading.
      Mr. Newton: That is a little unfair of my hon. Friend., I have made it quite clear on this and on several other occasions that distinct judgments must be made. The Bill does not cover national insurance contributions. The House will be invited to discuss a national contributions order in due course. The judgment that I made on what it is sensible to do in respect of SSP—this should already he clear—was informed by a parallel judgment that I had made about what I could do for employers on national insurance contributions. That was a perfectly sensible way for me to have approached the matter, and one which most hon. Members would support.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: We acknowledge the difficult task which my right hon. Friend has in trying to juggle the social security budget, particularly in dealing with the Treasury. That is well understood. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not simply the additional cost about which my constituents are concerned but the fact that, when statutory sick pay was introduced, they were required to administer what was essentially a Government system on behalf of the Government, and that that imposed burdens on industry? Had they been told then that they would not get 100 per cent. reimbursement, I suspect that their answer would have been, "You can stuff your scheme and do it yourselves."
      Mr. Newton: This is another area about which there has been prolonged argument. I have already referred to the rather strange and not particularly effective arrangement for compensation for national insurance contributions paid on SSP itself. That is the nearest that anyone has ever come to compensating employers directly for their administration of the scheme. My hon. Friend will find that at the outset there was not any form of direct compensation. That was one of the points at issue. In retrospect, the majority of employers have found the SSP scheme easier to administer than they had originally expected. All the evidence is that it is now generally working well, with relatively little burden for employers. I do not seek to say this in a bland way, but in some respects what I am proposing, with the elimination of the rather strange compensation for the NICs bit of the scheme, will make it simpler than it is at present.
      Mr. Michael Grylls: As I have said before to my right hon. Friend, it seems an extraordinary time to introduce added burdens for business, and above all for small business. My right hon. Friend will be able to draw away some of the criticism if he can tell us what the net effect will be on a firm with five or six employees, on average earnings, if one employee is off sick for six months. Will there be a net added cost to the firm, or will it gain? There is concern about the danger of added cost to a very small firm. If my right hon. Friend can assure the House that the new proposals sort out that problem, he will have answered quite a lot of criticism.
      Mr. Newton: I shall be coming in a few moments to the case of small firms, both of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend and others. He has referred to an employee being sick for six months. The main purpose of a significant concession in one of the rather complex Government amendments, relating back to an earlier amendment in another place, is to provide that small employers, defined on a fairly generous basis, can go back to 100 per cent. reimbursement in respect of any employee who is sick for more than six weeks. That is a significant end-stop safeguard for exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend has raised.
      Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State has introduced a complex Government amendment referring to six weeks. Can he give us an insight into Government thinking on this? My understanding is that all the discussions in another place were based on studies which showed that the average length of sickness was three weeks. It seems that the period of six weeks has been plucked out of the air without any
      182
      principle behind it. If the Secretary of State is making a serious attempt to be helpful to small businesses, why does he not make the period three weeks?
      Mr. Newton: In a nutshell, the position is that quite a number of small businesses will still be in pocket overall as a result of my proposals, because the national insurance contribution rate reductions have been geared especially to smaller employers, via being geared to lower paid employees. There will still be a large number of employers who will be better off on a straightforward calculation of the balance between the extra SSP which they have to pay and the reduced contributions from which they benefit, even up to twice average sickness, which would be one employee being sick for six weeks in the case which the hon. Gentleman seems to have in mind. We have chosen a number of weeks which we think will safeguard those employers who might otherwise be affected by rates of sickness significantly above average. I hope that I will be able to make the point clearer later in my speech.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sickness management is an employer responsibility, that the Government have gone far enough in offering assistance to employers to look after the sickness management of employees, that any responsible employer already takes care of sickness management and that more employers should do so? I support the Bill.
      Mr. Newton: That point has been made by a number of commentators, including most recently The Times in an editorial today, and the Financial Times in an editorial a week or two ago; certainly the point should not be overlooked in the argument. Indeed, I find it mildly ironic that the CBI has published a survey suggesting that British industry is cost many billions a year by absenteeism and pointing to the more determined methods to keep absenteeism under control which are used in some other countries. I have not sought to put great weight on that argument, and I do not want to mislead my hon. Friends or anybody else. There may be some force in it but it is not the reason for the proposals being brought before the House, and I do not pretend that it is.
      I want to come briefly, I hope—otherwise there will be no opportunity for anyone else to speak—to the major reason why the proposals have been brought before the House. As I have said, against the background of the continued expansion of occupational sick pay schemes, not least into the manual work force, we felt that it was right to make a limited further adjustment in the balance of provision as between the state and employers. I must underline that point. We have taken account of the many understandable demands pressed upon the social security budget for purposes for which employers certainly cannot be expected to provide—for example, the less well-off pensioners for whom I found nearly another £100 million in the uprating, following £200 million in the form of extra premiums in October 1989,for those who need help in residential care or nursing homes, for whom the uprating statement brought nearly another £250 million, and for those who are long-term sick and disabled. Certainly there has been a very wide welcome for the measures which I was able to announce to help precisely those groups and, indeed, for the earlier announcement of major improvements in disability benefits worth some £300 million, which the House will debate on Thursday.
      Mr. Tony Speller: No one can disagree with the wish of my right hon. Friend to help the disadvantaged. But why does he do that by disadvantaging small business? That is where I do not see the logic.
      Mr. Newton: I am coming to small business. I think my hon. Friend will find that many small businesses are on balance advantaged rather than disadvantaged by the proposals which I have brought before the House.
      I seek to conclude this part of my speech by saying simply—this is directly related to the point which my hon. Friend has raised—that the first question the House must address in considering the amendments is whether, in relation to the improvements in social security which we are making, which are worth many hundreds of millions of pounds for purposes commanding universal support, which have been pressed on me by many of my hon. Friends and by many Opposition Members, and on which I am constantly pressed to go further, it is reasonable to ask for a modest contribution from industry amounting to a small fraction of the improvements and amounting to less than one twentieth of 1 per cent. of their labour costs. The purpose of the main Lords amendment—amending 80 per cent. to 91 per cent.—is to eliminate even that very small contribution from employers to the improvements in social security to which I have referred. It is not realistic for that to be the position and I cannot, therefore, advise the House to accept Lords amendment No. 3.
      5 pm
      Sir Robert McCrindle: I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). Is he telling us that as we evaluate the desirable advances in social services provision—over which he has presided and for which I give him full credit —we must offset against that the possibility that employers, whether small or large, will have to make some contribution? Should we be wise to assume that it is no longer correct to take as sacrosanct other schemes, such as statutory maternity pay? Is my right hon. Friend telling us that an occasion may arise when, as he is doing today with statutory sick pay, he may find it necessary to make the employer additionally responsible for the maternity scheme, if that is the price that we have to pay for improving social benefits?
      Mr. Newton: There are two separate points in my hon. Friend's intervention. If significant improvements in social security, or in any other form of spending on welfare or for other purposes, are undertaken, there is no way in which employers collectively—industry as a whole—can be insulated from the effects. The costs will have to fall somewhere. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West were allowed the chance—and we all devoutly hope that he will not be—he would raise the overall rate of employers' national insurance contribution, he would raise the rate of corporation tax and he would almost certainly raise the rate of income tax in a way that would cause a great deal more difficulty to many small businesses than any of my proposals in the Bill.
      Mr. Meacher: I did not think that I needed to make this point to the House. However, what the Secretary of State has just said is wholly groundless. There is not a single shred of evidence in anything that I have ever said or
      184
      written that would justify his comment. If that is the only basis on which he can justify these impositions on small businesses, it shows his arguments totally lack support.
      Mr. Newton: Only this weekend, I saw in one of the Sunday newspapers a reiteration by one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who has recently joined the Opposition Front Bench of what purported to be a Labour promise to pay additional pensions. Would the hon. Gentleman like to say how that will be paid for?
      Mr. Meacher: That question is wholly irrelevant to our discussion today. But as the right hon. Gentleman has raised it, I will answer. We made it perfectly clear in our policy document—there was no great revelation in a Sunday newspaper—that, unlike the Government, we believe that older pensioners who are aged over 75 or 80 are completely without extra support, bearing in mind the way that the Government have cut the earnings relation when uprating pensions. We believe that those older pensioners need extra assistance. We intend to provide that, partly through the state earnings-related pension scheme and, if necessary, through some additional pension.
      Mr. Newton: I may have evaded one or two questions in my time, but I have never heard a question so wholly and hopelessly evaded in response to an entirely reasonable request. If one makes promises of several billion pounds of additional expenditure from the national insurance fund—
      Mr. Meacher: No.
      Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman seems to be going round the country—and some of his hon. Friends certainly are—promising several pounds a week extra to 10 million pensioners. If he can explain how he will fund that without a major increase in national insurance contributions, either at the expense of employees or, far more likely, at the expense of employers, I should be happy to listen. The point that I want to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) is that none of that could be cost free. I do not want to turn this debate into a wrangle with the Opposition. However, I must make the point that in one form or another, the business community and individuals, according to the balance of judgment that particular Governments take, would have to find the cost of improvements to social security.
      I do not ask my hon. Friends to say that they think that we have got the balance of judgment right in everything that we have done over the past 10 years, but I ask them —and I address this especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who has a commendable track record in urging various improvements—to accept that it is difficult for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make all the improvements and then not to receive support for some of the ways in which one has to find room to manoeuvre to make them. I ask for understanding at least in that respect and I suspect that I have it from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who is not only honourable, but an old friend from Essex in many other ways.
      Ms. Short: But not Essex man?
      Mr. Newton: The phrase "Essex man" had not come into my mind either as a description of myself or of my hon. Friend, but it cannot be denied that we both come from Essex.
      I have explained the strategic background to the proposals, so I want to come directly to the position of small employers, which has been the subject of particular concern, as has been clear this afternoon, even among those—and there are many—who accept the general approach that I have described. I turn now to Government amendments (a) to (e) to Lords amendment No. 7, which set out the Government's proposals for assisting small employers who experience abnormal levels of sickness in their work force on the basis of enabling them to revert to a 100 per cent. reimbursement after an employee has been sick for a specified time.
      Many hon. Members who have studied the debate in another place will know that my noble Friend Lord Henley tabled an amendment on Report on the Government's behalf. The Government had already clearly shown that they were listening to that concern. The amendment formed the basis of the new clause today. It was further amended on Third Reading in another place when more specific proposals were written in, to which I shall return in a moment.
      I want to say a word or two about the background. It is again important to recognise that the effects of the changes in statutory sick pay in the Bill are not sensibly seen in isolation from the proposals that I have announced for reductions in employers' national insurance contributions. To repeat a point that I have made in response to several interventions, although the reductions go right across the spectrum of employers' contributions, they have been weighted deliberately in favour of small employers who are more likely to have employees on the lower contribution rates. For employees earning up to £185 a week, the proposed reduction in the employers' contribution is 0·4 per cent. against 0·05 per cent. where the employee earns above that sum.
      If the small employer suffers average sickness levels in his work force, the contribution reductions will more than offset the reduced SSP reimbursement rate. I gave a number of examples when we last debated the Bill in this House, as did my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place. However, in the light of this afternoon's discussion, it may be helpful for me to give one or two further examples.
      If an employer has five employees all earning £170 a week and one of those employees is away for a total of three weeks in the year, which is the average incidence of sickness, there will be a net gain to the employer of £94·39. That assumes not only the 80 per cent. reimbursement, but that the employer tops up the difference between the lower and higher rate of statutory sick pay under an occupational sick pay scheme. That will not be true in all cases and, where it is not, the gain to the employer will be larger. Even on the least good basis that I can take, there will be a gain of almost £100 a year to the employer. Even if the employee is away for six weeks in the year—that is, twice the average incidence of sickness—there would still, on the relatively unfavourable basis from my point of view, be a modest gain of £11·98.
      If the employer had 10 employees in that earnings range and experienced the same incidence of sickness, the savings would be £188·78 and £23·96 respectively, while an
      186
      employer with 20 employees all earning £170 would gain £377·56 with four employees sick for three weeks, and just under £48 if the four were away for six weeks.
      I hope that I have said enough, because, clearly, those examples can be multiplied almost indefinitely, to indicate that, in a number of perfectly reasonable representative cases, even allowing for above-average sickness, a large number of employees and employers would gain from my proposals taken as a package, although not, of course, if we look only at the proposals in the Bill, but they are integral with the reductions in national insurance contributions. It is very important that I should underline that point with all the emphasis at my command.
      Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My right hon. Friend will know that I have made representations to him about all the extra money that he has already announced. I support his long battles with the Treasury, although I am not sure whether I agree with this one. However, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House and many other people that the scheme will not discriminate against those who have more sickness than others? There are bound to be people in work who, for whatever reason, need more time off because of their illnesses. There is great worry that they will be discriminated against by a company that decides that it cannot afford to take them on because they would be off work more often than an average employee.
      Mr. Newton: I shall refer later to the main thrust of what my hon. Friend says because it is related to the amendments. Her general point has been raised on several occasions. It was a main argument for not opting for a statutory sick pay scheme in the first place. There has been no evidence of which I am aware that the introduction of statutory sick pay, or any of the changes that have been made in it, have had the effect that my hon. Friend fears, often relating to disabled people in particular. Indeed, a recent survey suggests that disabled people in general have less sickness than many other people in the population. There is no need for employers to have that anxiety. There is no evidence that that anxiety has had a significant effect.
      Obviously, there are difficulties for disabled people in gaining employment. Those difficulties need to be tackled in other more specific and direct ways. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has some responsibility, and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Employment have a wide variety of schemes. I am sure that the effect of those is much more significant than anything contained in the proposals.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Newton: In one of the increasingly numerous intervals in which I have been sitting rather than standing, I have gathered that there is some concern about the little time that will be left for other hon. Members to take part in the debate. In view of the extent to which I have given way, it would be sensible for me to make some progress.
      I have just given some examples of small firms—
      Ms. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) or her hon. Friend the Member for

      187
      Oldham, West will no doubt have an opportunity to make a substantial speech. It would be sensible now for me to make progress.
      Ms. Short: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.
      Mr. Newton: I knew that it would be a mistake to give way to the hon. Lady. The trouble is that, when one does not give way to the hon. Lady, she simply falls back on interventions from a sedentary position.
      Ms. Short: It is an important point.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Newton: I have acknowledged persistently and repeatedly that there is a balance of £100 million—a tiny fraction though that is—of labour costs as a whole and that, therefore, not everybody can be gainers. However, the points of concern that have been mentioned by hon. Members and that have come in profusion from other quarters as well are being addressed in particular to the position of small businesses.[Interruption.] I cannot say for all small businesses, although we certainly hope to make sure that it will be virtually all small businesses. On any reasonable assessment of what they will be required to pay in SSP and what they will gain in reduced national insurance contributions, taken with the safeguard to which I am about to refer, very large numbers of small businesses are likely to be gainers from the proposals, and not losers. That is clear whichever way one looks at the statistics.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Newton: In fairness to Scotland, I shall give way.
      Mrs. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give a statistical analysis of the number of gainers and losers? That point is vital, particularly in rural communities such as my own, where we are dependent upon small businesses to retain local work forces.
      Mr. Newton: Each intervention now demonstrates that it would be more sensible if I got on with my speech.
      The concession that the Government are proposing, which is contained in the admittedly rather complicated amendments, is estimated to cover 700,000 employers. That is more than half the employers who submit national insurance returns to us. Those 700,000—a very large number of small employers, because the definition that we chose is generous—will have not merely the regular advantages of the national insurance contributions set against an average expectation of having to pay some SSP; they will have the safeguard that, if any employee is sick for more than six weeks, they will go back to 100 per cent. reimbursement. In those cases, there is a strict limit to the amount of extra SSP that they can be expected to pay in respect of any employee. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Lady for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). The measure is specifically designed as a safeguard for the employer who experiences an above-average record of sickness in a member of his work force. I must try to curtail my speech.
      We acknowledge that the operation of averages is easier to apply the larger the firm is. It is precisely for that reason that we have brought forward the amendments directed to the position of small firms in the way that I have described. Our efforts have been concentrated on designing a scheme that will help small employers whose experience departs
      188
      from the average, and that is the basis on which we seek support for the concession that is contained in the amendments.
      Different approaches to the problem have been urged on us. Originally, in another place we put forward an amendment in broad terms that would have allowed us scope for different ways of defining who was to count as a small employer for this purpose and different ways of seeking to cope with above-average sickness. However, their Lordships expressed a clear preference for one particular way of doing that, and it is that method of achieving that, rather than the exact details of what was passed in another place, that I am recommending to the House.
      As is self-evident, the amendments are complicated. I shall do my best to pick my way through the key provisions and explain them as carefully as I can.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Without giving way.
      Mr. Newton: I am grateful to be urged in that respect by my hon. Friend, as he has been known to intervene on Secretaries of States' speeches on earlier occasions. I shall take that remark as a self-denying ordinance, for the time being at least.
      The first key issue is how we define a small employer. The most obvious way is by the number of employees—five, 10 or 20. However, that method is open to some obvious difficulties. For example, it does not cope with the problem of an employer who has a fluctuating work force, and there are several other difficulties on which I shall not elaborate to the House. We concluded that it would be fairer and simpler to define a small employer by reference to his contribution payments in the preceding tax year. That focuses the definition of his actual wage bill. I am glad to say that, on a matter which has not been free from controversy, that approach to defining a small employer seems to have met with universal agreement.
      In practice the method would work as follows. All employers are already required, within 14 days of the end of the tax year, to complete a return to the Inland Revenue giving the total tax and national insurance contributions during that year. So employers should have the information readily available. If the total contributions are within a specified figure, the employer will qualify as a small employer during the whole of the succeeding year. Our original proposal and our amendment set the level at £15,000 of national insurance contributions in a year. That corresponds precisely with what the other place wished.
      It will make things clearer to people and enable them to judge the meaning of the definition if I say a word about the scale and size of firms which will come within it. I have already said in response to the hon. Member for Moray that we estimate that some 700,000 employers will potentially be eligible, ranging from an employer with four employees who all are on the upper earnings limit of £350 a week—fairly well paid people—to an admittedly unlikely set-up at the opposite end of the spectrum of 90 employees all on the lower earnings limit of £46 a week. The definition would cover both a large firm of low-paid people and a smaller firm of rather better paid people. It is a much more satisfactory definition than the alternative of counting heads.
      To give a few other examples, the definition would cover a firm of 22 employees all earning £100 a week or of

      189
      12 employees all earning £150 a week. As I said, we believe that that is a flexible system. I am sure that it is the right way to proceed. There is common agreement on that in both this House and another place.
      Another point which we have accepted is contained in our amendments. It is that the concession and safeguard to employers defined on that general basis should be related to the number of weeks for which an individual has been sick. At various stages in another place there was considerable argument about whether it was better to go for a relatively simple and straightforward approach or one that rested on an aggregated amount of SSP paid in a particular period.
      The Government originally hoped to consult on which method industry would prefer but, in the event, another place made it clear that it preferred a solution based on the number of weeks. We thought it right to accept that. However, its proposal was rather complicated. It suggested that one tranche of employers should have 100 per cent. reimbursement throughout, another should receive 100 per cent. reimbursement after three weeks and another 100 per cent. reimbursement after six weeks. We believe that it is right to go for a simpler system and that a proposal which secured 100 per cent. reimbursement for employers of any size went rather too far in view of the contribution reductions to which I have referred. Therefore, we tabled amendments which go beyond our original intention, which was a threshold of eight weeks, to the significantly more generous basis of six weeks, which, as I said, will apply to individual employees and will affect about 700,000 employers. We believe that that is about the right level at which to pitch the measure.
      To return to my example of an employer with five employees earning £170 a week who had one employee away for six weeks, the employer would have a total extra cost of £164·82 in SSP but his saving in national insurance contributions over his work force as a whole would be £176·80. So he would still be almost £12 to the good. He would begin to go into deficit if the SSP lasted for more than six weeks. That is when the Government propose that the small employers' relief and a return to 100 per cent. reimbursement should apply to prevent him from going into deficit.
      I have necessarily spent some little time on the proposals, not only as a result of interventions but because I thought it right to explain the proposals as fully as possible. I shall explain as briefly as possible some of the other points covered by the Government amendments.
      Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Newton: It would be more sensible if the hon. Gentleman allowed me to get on. I understand that he will make his own speech afterwards.
      Our amendments to subsection (1B) of Lords amendment No. 7 set out the formula for determining whether a small employer is entitled to small employers' relief. There is an algebraic formula, which is not as complicated as it might appear. It ensures that all days of SSP, including odd days, count in the calculation. Another improvement on the Lords amendments is that by relating the provision to periods of incapacity for work, linked spells—spells of SSP not separated by more than eight weeks—can be taken into account in calculating the six
      190
      weeks. That is a refinement which is not in the Lords amendments. Indeed, it is a further useful safeguard for businesses which experience above-average sickness in an employee.
      Subsection (1C) of our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No.7 retains for possible but not certain use in future some of the flexibility which we originally sought to gain. Whether it is appropriate to use it will depend on events. We shall take very much into account early experience of our proposals. We have maintained, at the cost of some additional complexity in drafting our amendments, the scope to adopt a different approach, what I would call an aggregation, rather than an individual employee approach, if that seems the sensible course. Several noble Lords in another place, including my noble Friend Lord Jenkin, attached particular importance to such an approach and we were anxious to retain the flexibility to adopt it if it seemed sensible.
      Subsection (1D) contains the power which enables regulations to define a small employer on the basis of contribution payments. The power is sufficiently flexible to allow us to define the prescribed period to which the contribution threshold relates to a period other than the preceding tax year. That makes provision for the new employer who does not have a full year's national insurance record on which he can be judged.
      The only other significant point which must be made is that subsection (1E) meets a point pressed on us fairly hard in another place by setting into the primary legislation the scope for reviewing the £15,000 contribution threshold. The subsection requires the Secretary of State to consider each year whether the threshold should be increased in the light of various points referred to in the amendment.
      I have said as much as I need to say about the drafting of the amendment, which represents a significant additional safeguard for small businesses which experience above-average sickness. Such employers would be likely —I cannot say certain—to be gainers from the basic structure of our proposals.
      Before I conclude, I should make a few remarks about Lords amendment No. 5.
      Mr. Richard Holt: How much will the proposals for large employers such as Cleveland county council affect the community charge? Any extra cost will have to be passed on by large employers but employers such as councils do not have customers to whom they can go, only community charge payers.
      Mr. Newton: I have necessarily used illustrative examples. Clearly it is not possible for me to work out, certainly not on my feet, the precise affect on Cleveland county council or any other employer, without any knowledge of the mix of its employees and the wages paid to them. However, such employers will benefit from the reduction in national insurance contributions, which applies at every level of earnings and to employers of all sizes.
      5.30 pm
      Lords Amendment No. 5 removes from the Bill scope for making further changes in the reimbursement rate by means of secondary rather than primary legislation. Without by any means accepting everything that was said on that matter in another place—perhaps it has been overlooked that there is power under secondary legislation to raise employers' national insurance contributions by no

      191
      less than about £1 billion—I readily accept that it was a point of concern to the business community which, despite what I said on Second Reading, continued to express fears lest there was some settled plan for going further than what was contained in the Bill.
      I am happy to advise the House in that respect to agree with the Lords in the amendment so that were any change to be contemplated at any future stage it would be necessary to bring primary legislation before the House, rather than to act on the basis of secondary legislation.
      I appreciate that I have delayed the House for some time, I hope for reasons which the House will understand. In everything that I have said is implied the view, which I hold strongly, that what we have proposed strikes a fair and reasonable balance—a new and slightly adjusted balance—in the provision for short-term sickness in circumstances where the small shift that it proposes makes an important contribution to progress on other social security objectives which are widely supported.
      My view that that is a fair and reasonable balance, in the context of social security spending as a whole, is greatly strengthened by the additional safeguard that we have built in for small businesses, responding to representations made by many of my hon. Friends and others, and I seek the support of the House for those changes, modified as they have been, as a whole.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must advise the House that the amendment and Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 7 involve privilege.
      Mr. Meacher: It is an unhappy day for parliamentary democracy when the Government impose a heavy 'Whip, as we are led to believe, to try to marshal their full majority over amendments made in another place which merely soften, but do not in any way strike out, what must be one of the most unpopular Bills in modern times. But I am encouraged by the number of Conservative Members present for the debate, which I hope will be a genuine and open debate on the issues involved.
      It is not unfair to say that the Bill does not have a friend anywhere, except the Treasury and the occupants of the Government Front Bench. It is comprehensively repudiated by the CBI, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Building Employers Federation and by any and every small business and organisation one cares to name, as well as by the TUC, the trade unions and the voluntary sector.
      Indeed, the business community and all major business representative groups are united—I cannot recall when this has previously been the case—in still demanding that the Government withdraw the whole Bill, even after the damage limitation achieved in another place.
      Mr. Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the Institute of Personnel Management is opposed to this legislation, being the practitioners who would have to put it into practice?
      Mr. Meacher: I am glad to accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, which I hope was heard by the Minister. It adds to my point that the right hon. Gentleman would find it impossible to find any reputable body outside which favours the Bill. I cannot recall a time when I was able to say that to the Government.
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. Meacher: No, because it is a side issue and I am anxious to make progress with my speech.
      The Minister's palpable embarrassment at defending the indefensible was exposed in his Third Reading speech, which must have been the shortest I have witnessed in 20 years in Parliament. It occupied a mere five lines in Hansard, the right hon. Gentleman simply saying that he might decide to say something later, which in the event he did not. In view of that obvious and manifest embarrassment, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not come to our proceedings today with a closed mind and that he will not treat Parliament with the contempt that a heavy Whip might suggest, for we are faced with serious issues that must be debated seriously.
      The central issue today is whether the Lords amendment to make the whole new Government package completely cost neutral should be allowed to stand. The original Bill was, as the Minister said, intended to cut the reimbursement of SSP from 100 to 80 per cent. It also removed the 7 per cent. additional handling charge which employers could claim for administrative cost.
      That would have cost employers about £250 million in 1991–92. That was roughly balanced—it was fair for the Secretary of State to make the point—by reductions in employers' national insurance contribution rates which would have saved them about £250 million a year. But those changes were heavily slanted in favour of employers paying below average wages, and they are not necessarily small employers.
      But the Government have offered no compensation to employers for the increased cost that they will have to bear as a result of the changes in SSP rates announced in the right hon. Gentleman's annual benefit uprating statement. Because of the rise in the earnings threshold, from £125 to £185, which determines entitlement to the higher rate of SSP, about three million workers will lose eligibility, of whom about 600,000 who might be expected to claim this year will lose about £9 a week.
      In many cases, employers would have to make up the shortfall and their costs would rise by as much as £100 million, according to the Government's figures. It was that shortfall which the Lords amendment was designed to rectify. It would increase the employers' reimbursement rate to 91 per cent. That percentage is fine tuned to increase the amount reimbursed to employers by £99 million, which is virtually exactly the loss to employers from the change in the SSP threshold. So the overall effect of the amendment is cost neutral in the Government's calculations.
      Three central questions are at issue today; first, why are the Government resisting the amendment and going to such lengths to overturn it; secondly, why are they so determined, in the face of a triple rejection in another place and when the business community is screaming for the withdrawal of the Bill, to push ahead with a measure that is cost neutral in its basic structure; and, thirdly, why are they being so excessively mean and niggardly, as I shall show, towards small employers and going out of their way to deny them the smallest relief already agreed in another place?
      The answers to those questions will reveal much about the Government's intentions. Why are they refusing to accept an overall cost neutral package? The answer seems

      193
      clear. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman virtually said as much today. He is having to make cuts in the package to recompense the Treasury for the minor concessions that he has already obtained from the Treasury on tick, in particular for the increase in child benefit.
      So the first reason to oppose the Government today is that that part of the Secretary of State's argument is wholly objectionable. It is not right to try to justify cuts in provision for one vulnerable group on the ground that more is being spent on another. A separate point is that the argument is also tantamount to the state advocating its well-established responsibility to protect the welfare of employees during periods of sickness.
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman loves to present himself to the House as the scourge of the employing classes. Why is he not prepared to accept the proposition that employers have a responsibility to their employees when they are sick? There is nothing wrong with requiring them to make a modest contribution to the care of sick employees. The hon. Gentleman does not answer that question because the point he makes is completely bogus.
      Mr. Meacher: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I agree that employers have a responsibility towards their employees when they are sick. The problem is that the survey from which the Government like to quote on the highly spurious 91 per cent. figure shows that only 44 per cent. of private sector employers provide occupational sick pay for their employees. For small firms, the figure is only about half that. That is why the state still has a clear responsibility, and it is foolish of the hon. Gentleman not to recognise that.
      It is not as though the extra £1 for the first child is much of an increase after a four-year freeze. The Secretary of State tried to outline the great improvements that the Government are making and said that, of course, employers must bear some of the cost. However, an increase of £1 a week for only the first child after a four-year freeze, when the shortfall is £2·30 a week, does not amount to much. The Secretary of State needed to make some improvement as a figleaf before the forthcoming election, but the Treasury would not fund it and forced the right hon. Gentleman to find the money by making cuts elsewhere. That is why the Government are so adamant that they will not accept the 91 per cent. overall cost-neutral compromise and insist on returning to their original 80 per cent.
      I think it was the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), who is otherwise engaged at the moment, who hit the nail on the head: how can the Government justify asking small employers to subsidise child benefit? That was an accurate observation. The Treasury's fingerprints are all over the Bill, but nowhere more clearly than in overturning the 91 per cent. proposal made by Lord Mottistone, a Tory peer in another place.
      Why are the Government so determined to press ahead with the main structure of the Bill when there is no net gain to the Exchequer—any savings on the Consolidated Fund are cancelled out by reduced income from national insurance contributions—and when all the business organisations demand that, in the light of the defeats
      194
      inflicted in another place, the Bill should be withdrawn to allow for the consultations that should have taken place when the Bill was first drafted?
      Mr. Newton: I shall try not to intervene too much, but there are echoes in the hon. Gentleman's speech of an earlier exchange that we had. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, when he has to put up employers' national insurance contributions to fund his expensive promises, he will yield to the blandishments of employers should they protest about what he is doing and try to stop it?
      Mr. Meacher: We have no intention of increasing employers' national insurance rate contributions, so the problem does not arise. As the Secretary of State is so extremely keen to press the point, we have said that we believe that there should be improvements for the pensioners, who have had such a lousy past decade, and in child benefit, which would be financed by removing the upper threshold of national insurance contributions, so that the rich, who have had such a bumper decade, would contribute a bit to help those at the bottom of the pile.
      Before I was led aside by that intervention, I was about to give a telling quote from a document from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Association of Independent Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry, the Forum of Private Business, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the National Chamber of Trade, the National Farmers Union and the Union of Independent Companies. Apparently, the Institute of Personnel Management is not represented, but it was probably not told about it and would have wanted to put its name to it. The document states:
      "We are unanimously agreed that, despite the important amendments incorporated during the House of Lords debates, the best course would be for the Government to withdraw the Bill and maintain existing arrangements for the present … That would allow full discussion before any major changes in this area are introduced."
      It could not be any clearer than that, so why is the Secretary of State digging in his heels? The answer is clear. The real purpose behind the wretched little Bill is gradually to transfer the whole of the cost of paying SSP to the employer. In effect, it will privatise the payment of sickness benefit. By transferring 20 per cent. of the cost, the Government save, on their own figures, £250 million and by transferring the rest the Government have their eyes on a further £1 billion. That is the real aim, which is why the Government are determined to stuff the Bill down the employers' throats come what may.
      5.45 pm
      However, that is not the end of the story. I shall return to the perceptive intervention of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir. R. McCrindle): the transfer of statutory sick pay could well set a precedent for statutory maternity pay, giving a further saving of £270 million, and for industrial injury compensation, when the savings might be more than £500 million. Let no one be unaware of the fact that we are setting that precedent today. The bottom line is that the Bill will dismantle the welfare state. That is why we, and I suspect the great majority of people in this country, strongly object to it. The Bill also involves shifting huge costs of up to, over future years, as much as £2 billion on to employers. That is why they object to it so strongly.

      195
      It would have made it much easier for the Government if they could have overturned the Lords amendment that requires that any further changes in the percentage of reimbursement should be through primary, not secondary, legislation. That is not what the Government wanted or intended. In the original Bill, the Government proposed that any change would require only a negative resolution of the House, not even an affirmative resolution. They wanted changes to be carried out quietly behind closed doors, if possible without embarrassing discussion in the open. However, in accepting the amendment adopting the primary legislation requirement, moved and passed in another place—I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State did so—the Government display no real change of heart. If they had overturned the amendment, the nakedness of their purpose—gradually reducing the percentage reimbursement towards zero—would have been too transparent, and so they did not.
      The Government, quite remarkably, refused to accept even the small concession on behalf of small employers that was moved and passed in another place. That was extraordinary, given the litany of damning screams from the Government's corporate supporters. I am sure that other hon. Members will have heard some of the complaints. The Confederation of British Industry said:
      "No one wants the Bill, but fear of its impact is widespread.
      The Government's tabled response does not meet the case.
      The best course would be withdrawal of the Bill."
      The Forum of Private Business said:
      "The timing of the SSP Bill could hardly be worse for the small business community because of the current recession. The Government clearly does not understand small businesses —or does not care."
      —[Interruption.] I am simply quoting the words of the Forum of Private Business. It goes on:
      "The Bill was rushed through the House of Commons at breakneck speed allowing insufficient time for small business groups to put forward positive solutions. As members of the DSS Employers Panel and the Contributions Unit, Specialist Group, the Forum of Private Business is aggrieved that it was not consulted. The proposals in the SSP bill fly in the face of the aims of the Deregulation Unit, a Government body which seeks to simplify rules and regulations affecting small firms."
      The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses says:
      "The provisions will add substantially to the costs of some businesses, amongst them many small businesses, and do so at the worst possible time, when they are coping with a deep recession."
      The Association of British Chambers of Commerce says:
      "This is one further burden which could push many struggling businesses into closure, supposedly in a period of deregulation when the private sector is expected to play a more prominent role."
      The West Yorkshire Council of the National Chamber of Trade says:
      "It would place intolerable burden upon employer's at a time of high interest rates, the impact of the uniform business rate and escalating high street rents. This would be a deathblow to many local small businesses and a sharp reduction in employment, also discouraging the employment of disabled and those suffering repetitive sickness."
      None of those organisations is known as having crypto-leftist sympathies. But, despite all that, the right hon. Gentleman is still not prepared to accept the modest concessions for small employers agreed in another place.
      It is important to be clear just how niggardly the Government are being. When the Bill was first before the House the Government offered no concessions to small
      196
      employers; but when the business organisations, beginning to alert their members, had had enough time to stir up some palaver in another place—I am glad that they did —the Government jumped in with a concession which they hoped would quieten their Lordships. It did not.
      The Government proposed a small employers' exemption after eight weeks of sickness where the annual aggregate of national insurance contributions in 1991 was less than £15,000, as the right hon. Gentleman stated. It was too little too late, and it was rejected out of hand—not surprisingly, since the number of sickness spells that exceed eight weeks is extremely small. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us the exact number. I am not even sure that he knows, but it is certainly extremely small.
      In other words, the Government were trying to buy off the Opposition with a concession which, on the best evidence given to me, was worth a paltry £1 million to £2 million. It was rejected, as it deserved to be, and instead the triple concession was passed—exemption after six weeks' sickness where contributions are under £15,000, after three weeks where contributions are under £10,000 and exemption immediately where contributions are under £5,000. It is important to realise how extremely modest that exemption package is.
      National insurance contributions of less than £15,000 imply—the right hon. Gentleman had the grace to admit this—a firm with only five employees where those employees are on national average earnings. The cost of the concession, according to my best estimates, would be only about £15 million. That would still leave an overall gain from the Bill of £85 million to the Exchequer. Despite the fact that that would clearly focus help at the point where the need was greatest for small employers, would obviate administrative complexities, for which the Government are always arguing in small businesses, the Government are trying to overturn it.
      In drafting prose in Government amendment (a)—algebra or otherwise, I found it some of the most impenetrable that I have ever had to wade through—the Government are now seeking to knock out the two lower thresholds: exemption after three weeks where contributions are under £10,000, and immediate exemption where contributions are under £5,000. I make it clear that in the latter case the companies that will lose the concession already granted in another place if it is overturned tonight will be overwhelmingly those employing one or two persons only—unquestionably those who have the greatest need; the companies that surely cry out for full exemption.
      The sole concession that the right hon. Gentleman is now prepared to contemplate is confined to cases where sickness exceeds six weeks, which is not quite as few as where it exceeds eight weeks but it is still unusual, and where the total cost to the Exchequer is, I believe, a miserly £5 million. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is presenting to the House as a generous concession which he hopes the House will back.
      I hope that Conservative Members who, perhaps justly, like to see themselves as the champions of business, particularly small business, will ask themselves tonight whether that is the action of a Government devoted to enterprise or the action of a Government who are cheese-paring and over-concerned with public expenditure cuts in the face of all common sense and reasonableness.
      The effect of the Government's obstinacy will be felt most in small companies, but it will be spread across the

      197
      whole of industry. The Building Employers Confederation, which embraces, as the House will know, many large and small firms, said:
      "The industry has an average manual wage of £260 per week."
      I make no apology for giving the figures because the right hon. Gentleman gave many figures. It goes on:
      "For an employee on average wages of £260 per week the reduction in employers' National Insurance Contributions will be £6·24 for the year for one employee. It can be seen from this figure that only if such a worker qualifies for Statutory Sick Pay for less than three days a year will his employer be 'a winner' or break even under the legislation. In an industry where much of the work is done in all weathers and is very physically demanding this level of sick leave is unlikely to be met in any company, large or small. The industry contains a large sector of firms employing less than twenty men, where at break even levels such as illustrated, the prolonged sickness of only one or two individuals could result in a heavy deficit under the scheme."
      In the light of that and so many other representations that I and I am sure many other hon. Members have received, it is difficult to see how Conservative Members can support the Government tonight when the voice from industry and commerce is unanimously condemnatory.
      Many have been put off the Bill by its assumed technicality and by the speed with which the Government pushed it through the House in order to avoid debate. But now that it has returned to the House, the issues are plain. They are not technical; they are political. They concern the state's responsibilities to employees who are sick, the right of employers not to be saddled, at extreme cost, with obligations that are not their function, and the need for the smallest businesses to be properly protected from unnecessary administrative burdens.
      For those reasons, I call on hon. Members on both sides of the House, if the Government will not withdraw the Bill as they should, at least to preserve and build on the important amendments moved and passed in another place.
      Mr. Nicholls: I declare at the outset my interests in the Federation of Associations of Specialists and Subcontractors and in the Hill and Smith Group.
      One of the curiosities about speaking in the House is that after a period of time the coinage of hyperbole becomes completely devalued. I make that point because during the past seven years it has been my unhappy lot to hear numerous speeches made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I have listened to him from the Back Benches and I have debated with him from the Front Bench and on every occasion when I have debated with him for any length of time he has shown a complete hatred—I use the word deliberately—of what he regards as the employer classes. He has never had a good word to say about them. The hon. Gentleman's view of the relationship between employees and employers—
      6 pm
      Mr. John Battle: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman will claim that we have a classless society.
      Mr. Nicholls: —is primitive, even by the standards of those who are heckling on the hon. Gentleman's behalf. For years, we have listened to a torrent of bilious abuse about the employing classes from the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Suddenly, the piranha has turned
      198
      vegetarian, and we witness the unique spectacle of the hon. Gentleman becoming the bosses' nark—when he should be attempting to make some proper criticism of the Bill.
      Did the hon. Gentleman make any real contribution or give the House the benefit of his intellectual thought? Mercifully not, but he retrieved from his wastepaper basket all the letters from employers' organisations that he should have read over the years, and quoted them to the House. The hon. Gentleman has undergone a transformation. He has joined the forces of light from the forces of darkness, and we are presented with the true champion of the employer classes. We see in the hon. Member for Oldham, West the man who claims to be the real representative of the employer classes and the one who will safeguard their interests. Who is the friend of the employers? It is the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Seldom have we been treated to a more ludicrous spectacle than seeing employers' rights championed in that way.
      I will treat the hon. Gentleman's contribution with greater kindness and consideration than it deserves, and ask why it is that employers' organisations have expressed their opposition to the Bill. I have a number of advantages over the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I have actual knowledge of the subject. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I run a small business and employ people, and must face the prospect and pressure of making a living at a time when there is a recession. As an employer myself, I do not take kindly to the proposition that I should pay out any more money, in any circumstances. My driving ethos is to gather in money, rather than to spend it. It is hardly surprising that employers' organisations should have written to their Members of Parliament, saying, "Here is a measure that will require us to pay more. We are not in favour of it." One could hardly expect them to be otherwise.
      In a curious way, the Bill does nothing more than formalise the practice that many employers already follow. If the claim that there is no real connection between an employer and his employees—that the employee is just a tool to be used, and that if he falls sick he should be made a burden on the state—was ever true, it is certainly not true today. It is ridiculous to argue that an employer has no interest in a valued employee once he falls sick. In this day and age, it is equally ridiculous to expect the state to do everything, and that responsibility should be taken from others.
      An editorial in The Times today makes the same point. Given the voluminous quotations used by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, it is surprising that he did not refer to that article as well. It states that the Government's arguments are powerful:
      "Statutory sick pay is fast becoming an anachronism. Nine out of ten employees are now covered by company schemes, most of them more generous than the state's. That is to be encouraged. And for the state to bear the whole cost of sickness creates the wrong incentive … With 30 times more days lost through sickness than through strikes, sickness management is vital to industrial efficiency. Managers should pay at least part of the cost from their pockets."
      That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller).
      Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman check the figure given in The Times? Is it not incorrect? Nine out of ten employees are not covered by company schemes, as that article suggests. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Library or to the Secretary of State, he will be informed of the true figure.
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman's point is not only bogus but boring.
      Mr. Battle: Why does not the hon. Gentleman try to make an argument instead of hurling abuse?
      Mr. Nicholls: I admit that my experience of socialists is that, having asked a question, they do not require an answer. However, the conventions of the House are such that, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, he will get an answer.
      I do not intend to turn this into a Second Reading debate, repeat all the figures that were given then, and illustrate the various ways in which they can be presented. One must inevitably do the best that one can with the figures available. If that is the best intervention that the hon. Gentleman can make in response to the arguments made today and in The Times editorial, it does not say much for the quality of his arguments.
      The Bill does nothing more than acknowledge common existing practice. Employers already take an interest in employees who fall sick arid maintain contact with them. However, I concede that business organisations feared that the Government had got it wrong, especially in respect of small businesses.
      On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that the measure will produce gains for some. Perhaps organisations that did not understand the Bill's detailed provisions at the time of its Second Reading last November will now be reassured. If one concern deserved to be ventilated in another place, it was the effect that the Bill might—and I emphasise the word "might"—have on small businesses. My right hon. Friend has now said that, even if the Government do not concede the arguments presented in the Lords, they concede the extent of the concern that has been expressed. I may say in passing that a more improbable body to claim to be representative of small businesses than the House of Lords would be hard to find—other than the parliamentary Labour party.
      In the overall context of social security spending of £63 billion a year, the Bill is a justifiable measure. One can understand the concerns expressed by small businesses, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has gone a long way to allay them.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) always tries to be nasty—[HON. MEMBERS: "And he succeeds.]—which should further his career. I intervene briefly because I have been asked by a representative of small firms in my constituency to raise certain issues in the debate. I have a question for the Secretary of State, who always knows the details of his legislation. I presume that the purpose of the original Bill was to save money, either for the Department or the Treasury. If so, what savings remain to be achieved after the changes" thatthe right hon. Gentleman announced? There must be some.
      I declare an interest as the chairman of a small firm, from which I have never made any money and never will. I take nothing from it. It receives no grants from any source and nothing extra from the bank. It stands on its own feet. That is also at the back of my mind.
      The Secretary of State referred to the growth in occupational pensions and said that it has not been so pronounced in manual occupations. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that absenteeism is not so high in
      200
      small firms as it is in larger companies. Therefore, his argument that absenteeism should be taken into account does not apply nearly so much to small firms.
      I was glad that the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd) warned the Secretary of State about the danger of using averages, which can affect the perspective. When the Secretary of State called them in aid, he failed to take into account the problems of very small firms.
      I promised to raise in the House a matter which was brought to my attention by the branch secretary of the British Decorators Association, Heavy Woollen and Spen Valley branch, Mr. Peter Hanley, who lives in Morley in my constituency. It also worries me because I know that small firms have problems at the moment. Goodness knows, problems are affecting small and large firms in the building industry, including the small firm of which I am chairman. One problem is that people do not pay their bills and a shortage of income, of whatever degree, causes problems.
      Mr. Hanley brought to my notice the fact that the association is
      "alarmed at the likely effect on small business employers"—
      of the Bill. He said that what the Government are doing is
      "a potential death blow to small businesses—particularly in labour intensive … industries".
      The Government, and not merely the Department of Social Security, should take that into account. When small firms are in trouble they cannot find the smallest amount of money. There is nobody to whom they can turn and banks are not nearly as helpful as they were.
      The member firms of the British Decorators Association are small and Mr. Hanley told me that they are
      "already reeling under the impact of the rating system plus revaluation, high interest rates and high street rents which are escalating alarmingly in most areas of our constituency."
      Will those small firms be worse off as a result of the changes made, taking into account the concessions—if that is the correct description—that the Secretary of State made tonight? Small firms have enough problems without having to face these additional ones.
      I have to congratulate the Government. They are hurting large numbers of people with the poll tax—people who would normally vote for them. That is marvellous. Their policy is so right that they continue to hurt the very people who put a cross on a piece of paper. Small employers do not vote Labour in very large numbers and they, too, will be hurt. They are worried, and I hope that the Government will take their worries into account.
      The Government are still saving money because of the Bill. If there were no savings they would not have introduced it. The amendments and the new clause do not go far enough. They will save money, but some firms will be worse off and that will be the straw which breaks the camel's back.
      By my stage in life I understand taxation, and I agree with my Front-Bench spokesman that taxation has increased in the past 10 years, despite the fact that income tax has come down. I believe that the likes of me should pay 50 per cent., not 40 per cent., in income tax, and that it is right to go to the electorate and say that there should be higher taxation. I believe that because part of the constituency that I represent is a deprived area and every

      201
      weekend I realise that it is nonsense for people to say, "Let us cut taxes". More money needs to be spent in some areas, but it needs to be spent wisely.
      The Bill will hurt small businesses rather than large numbers of people as the poll tax does. I believe in small businesses and that is why I want to help the firms in my constituency. It will not make a toss of difference at the next election in my constituency, so I am not arguing against the changes for that reason. Small businesses are in trouble and the Government are forgetting it.
      Mr. Speller: Our problem is one of trust and perception. I entirely accept everything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. He has our trust because we have always perceived him to be a good and honourable man. However, the outcry over the relatively small changes in the Bill has also changed perceptions of Government integrity and the Treasury's integrity in influencing the Government. This is not a minor matter. The integrity of business depends upon trust.
      Employers have to pay national insurance—there is no argument about that—but have always expected that they would get 100 per cent. reimbursement, having paid the premium. When one takes out an insurance policy, it is understandable, if one pays a lower premium, to have to pay the first 20 per cent. of the claim.
      One of my hon Friends pointed out that before employers had to pay national insurance contributions they could insure privately and get wonderful cover for their staff. However, the essence of the matter is that compulsion is involved and that the House is doing the compelling, not the other place, where they made significant changes to the Bill.
      At the moment, I am minded to vote against the Government simply because of the question of integrity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always makes the best case that he can, no matter how bad the hand that he is playing. The measure will not bankrupt Marks and Spencer and Cleveland council, which have both been mentioned, but for the farmers and small employers in my constituency it might be yet another of those last straws which do not quite break the camel's back but are making the camel a little bowed.
      The Secretary of State tells us—I know that he means and believes it—that there is some sort of average. One can always add figures together, divide them by a number of years and get a figure, but there is no average. In some years the shops in which I have an interest are destroyed for a fortnight because all the employees and the management have influenza. In other years it will be because of a three-day cold or lurgie, but there is no such thing as an average in a small business because they do not employ enough people to make an average. We all know which employees work hard and which do not. If employees can take 21 days' sick leave without loss of pay, we all know which employees will take them because they think that it is their entitlement.
      6.15 pm
      As an employer I would expect to pay my premium for statutory sick pay and to get my reward if I had to call upon it. I do not hope to cash it in, to be sick, or for any of my staff to be sick, but employers are paying 100 per cent. for a 100 per cent. return.
      202
      This is not the time to impose even the smallest burden. I know that the figures are pretty good—0·04 per cent., which is negligible. However, it is not negligible if one has 10 staff to worry about.
      When my right hon. Friend sums up, will he take a hard look at these so-called averages and bear in mind the fact that, although people throughout the country do not enjoy our various forms of taxation, they think that this form of taxation is especially mean. It is imposed upon those who cannot answer back. One cannot cancel the policy and find another insurance company. One is stuck with it and people like me do not like it.
      Mr. Wallace: Many hon. Members respect the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), who made some very pertinent comments and said that his vote will be following his voice. As he said, we cannot average figures out throughout the country and somehow find an equilibrium for the Secretary of State's proposals.
      When listening to the Secretary of State earlier this evening hon. Members had the right to be somewhat perplexed about what exactly he was telling the House. He certainly presented the proposals as a package with, on the one hand, national insurance contribution reductions and, on the other, an added imposition upon employers, and he suggested that they would balance each other out. However, he also said that there would be a net bonus of £100 million which would be used to help poorer pensioners and for community care—no hon. Member would quibble with that. Yet if £100 million is to be released as a result of this package, clearly there will be some losers. The pertinent question is, if small businesses are to be the losers, should they bear that burden? No one argues with the worthiness of the cause, but should small businesses have to pay for it?
      My party supports Lords amendment No. 3, although we regret the proposed reduction from the present 100 per cent. to 91 per cent. We oppose any reduction.
      The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) mentioned the leader in The Times today. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) did a fairly effective demolition job on the notion that nine out of 10 employees were covered by company sickness schemes. According to The Times,
      "for the state to bear the whole cost of sickness creates the wrong incentives."
      Conservative Members frequently assert that it is not the state's money, but the taxpayer's. We are talking about national insurance contributions made by both employers and employees, and we wanted a rebate.
      Back in the early 1980s, the Select Committee on Social Services considered the original proposals. I referred to its findings on Second Reading. Its report states:
      "Whilst the reduction in national insurance liability will be approximately proportional to payroll costs, the liability to pay ESSP will be far less evenly spread. Industries, occupations or regions with higher than average rates of sickness will have relatively greater costs under ESSP."
      Despite that timely warning some nine or 10 years ago, the Government have presented a scheme that they roundly rejected then and have fallen into the same old trap of trying to pretend that there is a possibility of a trade-off between changes in national insurance contributions and sick pay provisions.
      Ms. Short: The Bill was introduced with such speed that the social security advisory committee was unable to report at the time. Is not that another part of the whole dishonourable process?
      Mr. Wallace: The problem was not only the speed with which the Bill was introduced, but the speed with which further stages were taken, with Second Reading on a Monday and remaining stages on the Wednesday. That hardly allowed us time to breathe, let alone adopt a considered approach. The other place had time to engage in useful deliberation and consultation and thus was able to consider the Bill much more effectively.
      I believe that the Bill will have an uneven impact, affecting small businesses disproportionately—notwithstanding the concessions that have been made. The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. has made some calculations, taking into account both the 80 per cent. rebate provision in the Bill and the changes in employers' national insurance contributions. In 1990–91, if an employee earned £100 a week and his employer paid £7·03 national insurance, with a 100 per cent. SSP rebate—which would amount to £39·25—the 7 per cent. national insurance rebate would amount to £2·75, resulting in the employer's paying a total of £65·03. Following the enactment of the Bill, the employer would pay a total of £71·80—£6·77 per week more per employee, in a small business. That may seem a small amount, but the hon. Member for Devon, North referred to the "last straw". For a company facing a deepening recession, even that sum can mount up when multiplied by a number of weeks and a number of employees.
      In the case of an employee earning £125 per week, the added subsidy from employers is estimated at £18·34 per week, while in the case of an employee earning £150 per week the added subsidy amounts to £20·74 per week. When the employee is earning £184·50 per week, the added subsidy is estimated to be £.17·97. Those are fairly sizeable sums, which put the "package" referred to so frequently by the Secretary of State into context.
      Although we support the amendment, given a 91 per cent. rebate, the balance between what is gained and what is lost is neutral. That is very much the second-best option, the best being no diminution at all.
      We are glad to learn that the Government accept Lords amendment No. 5, moved by Lord Russell—in fairly vigorous terms, I understand, with copious references to Henry VIII. His was a very good speech, and I am glad that its persuasive power had its effect on the Government. If they try in future to change the rate and provide for a higher rebate, they must come back to Parliament with primary legislation. That is an important principle, irrespective of the subject matter: many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that far too much secondary legislation goes through both Houses of Parliament, especially by means of negative resolution.
      Further contentious matter is contained in Lords amendment No. 7 and the Government amendment to it. Admittedly, the Government have made an attempt to find some relief for small businesses, but we do not believe that it goes nearly far enough. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) proposed an amendment that he intended to have a similar effect, limiting the impact of the provisions
      204
      and bringing relief to companies employing fewer than 20 workers. The Government rejected that amendment, but wiser counsels prevailed in another place.
      We support the amendment moved successfully in another place by Lord Stanley. According to the figures that I have been given, a total national insurance contribution of less than £15,000 could cover companies employing up to 20 workers, with a taper giving cover of £10,000 for a company employing between five and 10 people and £5,000 for a company employing one or two. The estimates that I have been given differ somewhat from those cited by the hon. Member for Oldham, West; it is the difference between £6 million and £15 million. Either way, it is a small amount compared with the Government's total budget and what they seek to achieve in the Bill.
      I ask the Secretary of State to consider the merits of the taper that would allow the smallest businesses—those employing only one or two people—exemption in the event of sickness. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman needs much imagination to understand what it means to such a business to have 50 per cent., or even 100 per cent., of its work force off sick. I am not talking only about the cost with which this provision will land such businesses; I am talking about the cost to the enterprise as a whole of lacking a key employee at a certain time. The taper is designed not just to provide financial relief, but to take account of the set-up in many small businesses where the value of individual employees is even greater than it is in firms employing 100 or 500 people, in which a single absence could probably be covered.
      We are sorry that the Government seek to lose the taper. They propose a £15,000 threshold and a period of six weeks. As I said earlier, that period appears to bear no relation to principle; it is twice as long as the average sickness period. Although the Secretary of State suggested that 700,000 businesses would come into that category, it is clear that many fewer stand to benefit.
      I echo the view that the best option would be the withdrawal of the Bill. It is a penny-pinching, mean-minded measure that will affect small businesses especially badly at a time of recession and will affect those forming businesses when they, too, face exceptional difficulties. It is, as we said, the last straw for many businesses. It does little to save the Treasury money; it leads to little saving in manpower. Rather, it transfers to the private sector a state function which I believe many hon. Members feel should lie with the state.
      We shall support the amendments that were made in the other House, but only as second best to the Government's withdrawing this Bill altogether.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I rise to comment, for the purposes of the debate, on Lords amendment No. 3, to praise my right hon. Friend and, I hope, in passing to damn this Bill. I want to praise my right hon. Friend because I would not want him to misunderstand. He can surely tell that there is great affection for him and trust in what he has been doing over a number of years in social security. That is not affected in any way by what I am about to say.
      It seemed to me that the burden of my right hon. Friend's case was that he had provided a number of gains of one kind, that these had merit, but that there was a cost in securing those gains and it was not unreasonable to ask

      205
      businesses to contribute to that cost. I understand the argument perfectly, and I believe that we are in deeper waters than my simple translation of the position might imply, because there is a point here that goes to the heart of the matter.
      I understood that the statutory sick pay scheme was brought about because, the Government said, it was effectively a no cost scheme for businesses. Indeed, that point was emphasised when they made an additional grant of 7 per cent. in a sense for administering the scheme. However, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, times change, and this is what really concerns me. He is looking at a social security budget and within that he is trying to see perhaps a gain here and a recapturing of expenditure there. This measure goes to the heart of small businesses and, indeed, of every business in the country. I wonder what the Department of Trade and Industry has to say on this, or indeed the Department of Employment.
      I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). It is true that in life the success of great enterprises is often a question of sentiment. With people behind one, one can achieve miracles. When one does not have people behind one, that withdrawal of sentiment and faith in institutions, Governments or parties makes it much more difficult to get things to work.
      Let me put the argument from the point of view of business. I have watched with regret the rise of inflation. I say no more than that. It has imposed great difficulties on businesses. There have been rapid increases in rent, reflecting an increase in money supply. We have seen the corrective action that has had to be taken, an increase in interest rates. We have seen entry into the exchange rate mechanism, which means that we now predicate our interest rate policy on exchange rates. All these have a direct bearing on both small and large businesses. And at the end of the day, through this measure, we are putting an additional burden on businesses. We are changing the sentiment.
      As my right hon. Friend has acknowledged, and as was shown in the debate in another place, we do not know how this falls. We do not know the incidence of those covered by company sick pay schemes. I think that the rubric is that 90 per cent. of companies have some form of sick pay scheme. I should have liked my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to have taken on board that point because it was he who, in part, stirred me to speak in this debate. I am very glad to note that he obviously affords all the benefits that The Times urges all companies to provide.
      But life is a transitional matter and we try to achieve what we can as and when we can. The burden of my concern is that we are placing an additional disadvantage on companies. It is not very easy to quantify and in some instances it is probably very small. I accept my right hon. Friend's statement that there might be instances of very small companies benefiting from his amendment. But for some it is a burden of considerable size, and this is where I am very sceptical about Government statistics. They say that £250 million represents only ·075 per cent. of £300 billion. What has that got to do with the price of fish? That
      206
      is what we used to say in business. It has very little to do with the price of fish. It is a burden that is borne by the businesses.
      I cannot blame my right hon. Friend for this imposition. I feel that it is a misjudgment of Government. I think, therefore, that our noble Friends and all those who often support our party instinctively—small business men like myself—would be grateful if the Government took the opportunity to reflect and to withdraw what is an abysmal little measure.
      Mr. Battle: On 26 November, when the House debated the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, we were told by the Secretary of State that the proposals in the Bill would be widely welcomed. I think it was the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) who said that employers wanted to accept more responsibility for their lives. What we have learnt today in the debate, as well as in the country at large, and in the debate in the other place, is that that is manifestly not the case.
      Markers were put down on Second Reading and in Committee, on 28 November, when the House discussed the Bill, and there were votes on the issue then. It is worth bearing in mind that the Government tried to squeeze this Bill through the House at what we might call the interregnum between the former Prime Minister's resignation and the election of the new Prime Minister. It was the time when there seemed to be almost wall-to-wall coverage by the press and other media of the changes in the Conservative leadership. Therefore, there was very little coverage of what was happening in the House. Only subsequently has the world woken up to the Bill's implications.
      Since that time the Bill has gone to the other place, which has overruled the Government's proposals. We are now faced with a Government amendment that is nearly as long as the Bill itself, and the Secretary of State refers to it as safeguards being built in when it is really a late-in-the-day rearguard action against a badly mauled Bill that should be withdrawn because of injury.
      In opposing the Bill, the Confederation of British Industry says in its letter that no one wants the Bill and that
      "The Bill has been rushed. Serious concerns only emerged during the last stages."
      I would argue that some of those concerns were raised on the Floor of the House, and it is on the record for those who care to reflect on it. We have argued throughout, and we repeat now, that it is the Government's policy in the Bill to reduce the state statutory social security contributions and to push those burdens on to the backs of employers, and ultimately the employees will have to pay the price.
      The hon. Member for Teignmouth cited the editorial in The Times today. He should not believe all that he reads in every newspaper. This Bill was rooted in a report commissioned by the DHSS, and the Government claimed at the time that the vast majority of workers were covered by private occupational schemes. However, the details in that report show that 44 per cent. of all private sector firms and 55 per cent. of firms with fewer than 10 employees, which effectively accounts for 75 per cent. of firms, have no scheme whatsoever. How does that show that 90 per cent. are covered by private schemes? Even in firms where some occupational scheme exists, coverage is far from universal

      207
      because the employees most commonly affected are covered by exclusion clauses; they are working part time in lower grades on low wages, so they are not included.
      Effectively, nearly one in two schemes has exclusion clauses relating to the length of service and the hours of work. In other words, 72 per cent. of employees may be affected by those exclusion clauses. So the coverage is extremely limited and even the writer of The Times editorial might like to reflect on the true evidence that we ought to be considering instead of creating the impression that there is blanket coverage when there is not.
      The Minister said in the past that fears were exaggerated. I remind the House that we were told that fears about the poll tax were exaggerated. There is a very interesting parallel—because what is the figure there? The Government insisted that everybody must pay at least 20 per cent. regardless of ability to pay. It was precisely that clause that landed the Government in the mess with the poll tax that they are now trying to clear up. The same is true of the uniform business rate and the unavailability —for—work test.
      The Bill represents a further withdrawal of Government responsibility, significantly now at the worst of all possible times. The recession is manifestly worse. Interest rates are biting and everyone knows it. When the cornerstone store in Leeds—Lewis's—has to put a closed notice on its doors after having negotiated a wage cut of 7·5 per cent., it is clear that the economic policy of this country must be deeply flawed. Firms are beginning to pay the price.
      Traditionally, Leeds is the city of small and medium-sized firms. The fact is that 4,500 small and medium-sized firms make up the city's commercial base. The Leeds chamber of commerce and industry wrote to me at the end of last month and said:
      "At our recent Council meeting, our members were unanimous in expressing their opposition to the proposals to substantially alter the administrative procedures of Statutory Sick Pay.
      We are particularly concerned by the intention to reduce from 100% to 80% the amount by which employers are reimbursed by Government for payments made to sick employees by deduction from remittances of National Insurance Contributions … it was agreed that the existing principle behind SSP—that it is a state benefit administered by employers—should not be weakened and that the existing reimbursement of 100% should remain … we do not acknowledge that individual employers can expect such a neat balancing act and believe that many businesses will be adversely affected.
      One of our members with a large labour force reports that the cost of staff sickness is currently running at the rate of around £1·25 million to £1·5 million per annum. They estimate that the proposal to reduce the current level of reimbursement of employers' expenditure on SSP from 100% to 80% would cost them about £50,000 per annum.
      At a time when industry and commerce is under severe financial pressure we feel that it is totally inappropriate to bring forward such legislation".
      The letter is signed by the president of the Leeds chamber of commerce and industry. Tragically, he has had to announce 250 job losses in his own textile manufacturing company in the city. The Leeds chamber of commerce and industry knows about the pressures that small and medium-sized firms face. Some firms will have to pay back to the bank 21 per cent. in interest. They may employ only two or three people. Their margins are absolutely tight. Marginal costs can mean jobs lost. I urge the Secretary of State not to paper over the Bill by means of long amendments but to take it away and think again.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: I have listened with increasing weariness to the rantings and ravings of Her Majesty's Opposition. Their opposition to this excellent measure seems to be based on the same tired, old and outdated battles on class structure and hatred of employers which makes the linkage with the Confederation of British Industry somewhat suspect. All hon. Members have received a battery of pleas from eminent employer organisations urging us to oppose the Bill. Might we now for a moment or two look at more logical reasons for not responding to the pleas of those organisations?
      The point has been made that the Bill was introduced in haste. There is something in that argument. However, we have had a good debate and I suggest that the fact that the Secretary of State has considered the arguments sensitively shows that more time is not needed to debate the Bill and that it could easily be passed this evening.
      Secondly, there is the question of timing and the difficulty of implementing such a measure during a recession. Small firms are the most immediately vulnerable during a recession. I received a good proposal from the National Farmers Union, but the proposals made by the Secretary of State in the form of amendments must go far enough to ease worries.
      Thirdly, and most important of all—
      Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Miss Nicholson: As I want to make a short speech, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way.
      Thirdly, there is the philosophical question: is it right that the Government should place the burden of responsibility for this modest proportion of statutory sick pay on employers? To that question I say, resoundingly, yes. Henry VIII—that excellent merry monarch—has already been mentioned in the debate. Is it not appropriate to think of employer-employee responsibilities as somewhat akin to marriage? In marriage one takes on one's partner in sickness and in health. That is also true of the partnership in the workplace. We cannot take on an employee and say that we shall take on only part of that employee—that we shall use that man or woman only if he or she is in 100 per cent. health. We take on the whole person—their skills, qualities and weaknesses—and also that person's liability, which all of us share, to fall sick from time to time.
      6.45 pm
      It is important to the health of British industry that there should be a far closer partnership between employer and employee. Germany is hugely successful. Japan—an even more dominant partner in the coming worldwide pattern of trade—has the closest possible link between employer and employee. I believe that the state makes a very bad third partner—indeed, a very bad mistress which could lead to divorce between employer and employee. By taking away responsibility from the two partners affected by the working partnership—the person in charge and the person who is taken on—the state causes grave difficulties for British industry and weakens the role of management as well as the position of the employee.
      Why, therefore, should the state intervene in the first place by making any form of statutory sick pay provision? Why did the House of Commons pass such a measure? The primary role of the state is to set standards on behalf of society, to which society should adhere. The best

      209
      employers already run excellent statutory sick pay schemes. However, there are many not-so-good employers. Therefore, the state has to set standards in order to ensure that all employers follow the best possible practice. That must be the primary role of the state. Its role is not to take responsibility off our shoulders, whether we be individual citizens or organisations, or large or tiny firms. The state must set standards for employers.
      We have spoken at length about small firms. This is an article of faith to which both sides of the House seem to be firmly pinned, but large and medium-sized companies are just as important to the health of the British economy. The Bill will go a long way towards buttressing the good partnership between employer and employee at all levels of British business. I strongly support the Bill.
      Mr. Frank Field: I wish to add one point and, perhaps surprisingly, to move the debate on from the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). If the hon. Lady were to suggest that I have joined the class rantings on this side of the House, although it may not further the debate, it may improve my chances in my constituency. That would be none too bad a thing.
      My single point is that we are discussing an important and considerable change—a point that has not always been made clear in the speeches that I have heard. I am afraid that I was not here for the first part of the debate, as I wished to attend the meeting with the Polish ambassador. I oppose this change. I am not one of those who traditionally oppose change. It was the Labour party that first proposed the sale of council houses. I believed it to be an important means of spreading wealth in the community. Moreover, I want pension changes to be made that go far beyond those proposed by the Government. I also want those who are building up substantial private sector assets, in the form of pension funds, to have real control over those assets.
      I am not committed to a state bureaucracy that delivers welfare benefits. I wish that we were debating a renaissance of friendly societies under which we could choose the means of receiving benefits. However, on the question of sickness pay and the national insurance scheme, I must take a stand. There is a coalition of interests between Members on both sides of the House. We are making a plea about rights of citizenship. There are some things in society that are so important and fundamental that provision must be made by the state. When the original sick pay scheme was introduced we lost that debate. I believe that the Government were able to get that change through the House only because employers and their representatives on the Government side were given a guarantee that it would involve no costs for employers.
      The issue of principle at stake tonight is that that commitment is being broken in such a way that the weakest backs in industry will have to bear the burden. The Government are being given something of a fright. No Secretary of State introducing such a little rag-bag of amendments would have to spend an hour explaining them if there were not trouble from behind. That is especially so in this case because the Secretary of State for Social Security is one of the Government's best debaters. We all know that if the Government, despite their fright, get away with this, there will be another year, another series of negotiations, in which the Secretary of State will have to give as well as take. The Secretary of State knows that if
      210
      he beats the employers by imposing these additional costs on them he will be able to come back on another occasion and increase the burden. The crucial commitment that was made is being broken. That is what we shall be voting about tonight, although we shall do so for differing reasons.
      We have heard an awful lot from Opposition Members about small businesses. I am pleased about that. I wonder whether many people outside will regard the remarks as more than skin-deep. I hope that they were. Albeit with different motives, we are joining forces with people whose views we sometimes do not share. We are doing so because there is an important principle at stake. For Opposition Members, there are badges of citizenship that can very quickly be destroyed. The consequences of that destruction may not be felt immediately, but in the long term they may be seen in the form of social strife. Government Members have referred to the importance of small businesses and to the unfairness of putting the burden squarely on their shoulders so that other expenditure may be undertaken.
      As I have said, there is in the House tonight a community of interests. For reasons that have been put forward by several hon. Members, I hope that we shall not simply support the amendments that have been forced on the Government by another place, but that we shall be able to persuade the Government to withdraw this squalid little measure—squalid not because the Secretary of State has in any way behaved dishonourably, but because there is a basic principle at stake. A commitment is being broken, and we are asking the poorest sections of the industrial world to bear the burden. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to ensure that this Bill will not go through.
      Mr. John Browne: These are unusual times. The recession that we are experiencing is unusually deep—deeper than recessions that we have known before. It is amazing that the Government should choose such a time for this plan.
      As the inflation rate drops, real interest rates are increasingly high, and rising by the week. In Winchester, Alton and other parts of the country, normally prudent people are being driven into bankruptcy. This is extremely serious. Indeed, the situation goes back well beyond the past decade. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, I voted against our entry into the exchange rate mechanism because I believed that it would result in higher interest rates and higher unemployment than we would otherwise have. That is now happening. Interest rates are now dictated not by our own economy, which is calling hard, through deflation, for lower interest rates, but by our exchange rate. That is absolutely wrong.
      Small businesses constitute one of the hardest-hit sections of our economy. The Government's measures to support small businesses have my absolute support. However—I have been put under considerable pressure not just to keep my speech short but not to speak at all —I must urge my right hon. Friend to withdraw this measure in view of our present very exceptional economic circumstances. The proposals should be withdrawn in the national interest.
      Mr. Flynn: It is unfortunate that two hon. Members on the Government side were absent for the major part of the debate. Had they been here they would have heard not

      211
      ranting from either side but very reasoned debate, indicating a community of interests. It is a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred. On this subject, my credentials are rather similar to those of my hon. Friend, in that my maiden speech, too, was on the virtue of the sale of council houses. I raised that subject as a member of a Labour local authority that had been selling its houses for 20 years.
      We heard a very unpleasant, spleen-hacked, neurotic diatribe from the hon. Member from Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who managed to pack a smear into almost every syllable. It is unfortunate that the debate should be conducted in such a way. I commend to those hon. Members who have not read the report of the Lords debate that they do so in order that they might be made aware of the elevated quality of debate in that Chamber. As democrats we should adopt the decisions that were reached there.
      It has been suggested again and again that all will be well if we throw employees to the wolves without statutory sick pay. It has been argued that they are already protected. Let us get the position exactly right. The report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has been misunderstood by The Times. The IFS did not say that 91 per cent. of employees are covered by sick pay schemes; it said only that 91 per cent. of all employees work for employers in whose cases some people are in some circumstances covered by sick pay schemes. What is the truth? For those working in dangerous occupations, the situation is even worse. For those working in low-paid occupations, it is far worse. The Secretary of State said that we did not have to worry. He made the point that in the early stages of a job —the first few weeks—people do not very often go off sick. In fact, such people are the very ones who are often involved in serious accidents at work and who are therefore likely to need sick pay.
      The citizens advice bureaux carried out a trawl, the findings of which contradict the rather rosy picture that has been presented by Government Members. The bureaux found that far more problems are now arising because of employment difficulties. Members of Parliament are aware of that. The bureaux refer to a Nottinghamshire case in which an employer considered a client's pregnancy to have been self-inflicted and refused to pay her SSP. In Devonshire, a client who had worked for eight months as a night care assistant had to go into hospital. When the employer, having been contacted by the DSS, eventually returned the SSP form he stated that the woman was no longer employed by him and that therefore she was not entitled to SSP. In Hertfordshire, in the space of one month, seven employers refused to pay SSP to clients who were eligible for it. In Shropshire, a person who lived in tied accommodation was dismissed after two weeks of sickness and received no SSP. In Buckinghamshire, in a five-week period, there were five cases of employers failing to pay SSP. A deeper trawl will show hundreds of such cases.
      It is not true to say, as the Secretary Secretary of State did, that there is some quid pro quo between the advantage to employers of lower contributions to national insurance and what will happen under the Bill. There is no linkage. All employers will benefit from the national insurance changes, but only employers unfortunate enough to have much sickness among their employees will suffer because of the Bill. We are placing a burden on employers, and the
      212
      Bill will be a disincentive for them to employ disabled people or those whom they perceive as likely to suffer from long periods of sickness.
      7 pm
      The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) referred to Henry VIII, and many of us would query her picture of him as a model parent and husband. The other place threw out the worst feature of the "Henry VIII clause". We have heard from courageous Conservative Members, employers' associations and trade unions a hallelujah chorus of protest against the idiocy of the Bill.
      Mr. Thomas Graham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bill is causing tremendous anxiety in Scotland? I have received a letter from Bill Knox, who is a well-known campaigner on behalf of the small business federations in Scotland. He says:
      "The Government are pushing through a new Bill on S.S.P. which will destroy the principle that the State pays Statutory Benefits to employees."
      Most organisations in Scotland are absolutely opposed to this stupid, silly measure that the Government have thought up.
      Mr. Flynn: I am delighted to hear that the Scottish singers in the hallelujah chorus are in harmony with the rest of the country.
      The Bill is discredited, wretched and friendless and we should throw it out.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I place on record the views not of the employers' federations but of a small factory in my constituency which faces bankruptcy. The work force believed that they could make the business work, took it over and made it work. They phoned me today and said that if the Bill is passed it will probably shove them over the brink.
      It is the principle that matters. Not only have the Government broken a promise, but they have had the effrontery to jeopardise the future of the scheme. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 1 give the Government power to alter it without reference to the House, and that is wrong.
      We are seeing a change in Government policy. The Secretary of State is always talking about the employers' contribution to the scheme. A good employer always added to the state provision for his work force, but the Government are now legislating for an alternative. The Government see occupational pension schemes as the future; employees and employers will pay, but the state will back out of its obligation to look after sick and retired people. That is what the Bill is all about. If the House has any common sense, it will throw out the Bill or, at worst, accept the Lords amendments.
      Ms. Short: This is a dishonourable Bill which has been introduced in a dishonourable way. I am sorry to say that to the Secretary of State. I know that he is not a dishonourable man, but the record speaks for itself.
      The Bill is a complete breach of the agreement made between the Government and employers' organisations, after considerable discussion and debate, that when statutory sick pay was introduced there would be 100 per cent. reimbursement and that the costs of administering the scheme would be repaid. That promise has been

      213
      breached, and there is a sense of fury about that among employers' organisations. The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) rightly said that integrity is involved. The Government have broken their word.
      The Secretary of State gave three examples in which the employer would gain. I am afraid that that argument is dishonourable. We know that the package involves a saving. Any gains therefore mean other and larger losses elsewhere. To try to impress his hon. Friends, who are clearly disturbed about the Bill, with three examples of gainers when he knew that there must be more losers than gainers was dishonourable.
      The Government knew that they had to be furtive about the Bill, which was brought before the House with indecent haste. It was given a Second Reading on a Monday and its Committee stage was held on the Floor of the House on the Wednesday. We know the purpose of that: the Government did not want to allow employers' organisations time to mobilise. They had fought before on the issue and would fight again. The Government fixed the business of the House so that they could not do so, which is why the brunt of the opposition to the Bill was expressed in the other place. That was another dishonourable act by the Government.
      The Bill affects the interests of not only employers but workers. The change being made is part of a package of serious cuts in sick pay for employees. The uprating removes 3 million employees from eligibility for the higher rate of statutory sick pay. As a result, some 600,000 people stand to lose an average of £9 a week when they are sick, in addition to the 300,000 who will lose £13 a week as a result of the changes in sick pay entitlement that will take effect in April. No fewer than 5 million people have had their entitlement to statutory sick pay reduced in the past two years. That is an uncivilised move. If we live in a caring society that offers a decent standard of living, we should at least guarantee that if any of us have to take time off work because of sickness we shall be cared for and not forced on to means-tested benefits, with all the worries that that causes when another member of the family is working.
      The whole move, which is part of a plan to privatise sick pay, is deeply regressive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) pointed out, this proposal was made under the old Thatcherite Government, but this Government have not had time to throw it away. There is no doubt but that the best way of ensuring that everyone is protected is a national insurance scheme.
      The Government want to privatise, and to do so they misuse statistics—this is another dishonourable feature —by saying that 91 per cent. of employees work for firms that offer an occupational sick pay scheme. That is a deeply dishonest figure. A firm that employed thousands of manual workers but offered a small scheme only to senior management would be included in that statistic. It is outrageous and misleading, but I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State keeps using it.
      Occupational sick pay schemes build on state provision. Someone who is lucky enough to be in an occupational sickness scheme negotiates with his employer for him to build on the national insurance system.
      The change has been made, apart from the questionable ideology behind it, because the Secretary of State was pressurised in the expenditure round. He had to do
      214
      something with child benefit because it was becoming such an embarrassment. He found a little bit of money for the first born instead of uprating the benefit properly. I know that he has been concerned to do something for low-income elderly pensioners, but the Treasury would not give him anything and said, "If you want to increase child benefit, you must pay with something else out of your budget." Therefore, reluctantly, he gave up statutory sick pay and was forced into all the dishonour that we are discussing.
      What is wrong is all the restraint imposed on the Secretary of State by other people. I respect him enough to think that if he was in control of these matters, things might be different; perhaps that is being over-trusting. Here the sick are being required to pay for benefits for the elderly and for children. That is wrong. Under the Government we have seen massive redistribution. If we accumulate the benefits and tax changes, what has happened? Up to 1989, £6·5 billion has been taken from the bottom 50 per cent. of the population and £4·6 billion of it has been given to the top 5 per cent. That is what it is all about. The Government have given away so much to the very rich in society that they have to take money from the sick for child benefit because they are so deeply embarrassed by their failure to improve it in the past.
      All of this comes during the most frightening recession which is not being discussed politically because we are all preoccupied with the situation in the Gulf. The figures, which are coming in sharp and hard, and the personal experiences make the recession look as bad as that in 1980–81. I hope and pray that it will not be as bad. That recession destroyed my region and my constituency, and I hope that the same will not happen again. Firms are going bust all over the land. I cannot believe that Lewis's, where I went as a child to see Father Christmas, has gone.
      The changes in statutory sick pay will come on top of the recession. They will tip some firms over. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) makes an art form out of nastiness—that is not intended as a compliment. I do not know how it is in his part of the world, but in Ladywood vast numbers of people who run small businesses vote Labour. Whether Afro-Caribbean, Asian or white, their interests lie with the well-being of the local community. Their children are local, unemployed young people; they worry about local schools; they are Labour voters in significant numbers.
      I was surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) went along with the line put forward by the hon. Member for Teignbridge. Perhaps things are different in Birkenhead, but certainly in Ladywood many small business men vote Labour and are members of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Teignbridge is an ideologist. He has forgotten that the former leader, the one who would be impressed with his style of speech, is not in office any more. We are supposed to pretend that the Tory party is in favour of a classless society, as we screw the people who are sick in order to pay benefits to the elderly and the poor.
      Mr. Nicholls rose—
      Ms. Short: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. If he changed his behaviour when people give way, I would think of doing so.
      Mr. Nicholls: Give way and see.
      Ms. Short: I do not believe it; I have seen the hon. Gentleman perform too often.
      My hon. Friends and I agree with small businesses, the interests of people who are sick and the other place that the Bill should be withdrawn. If it is not, we shall support the amendments that were made in the other place which would at least improve the Bill somewhat.
      The other insidious thing in the package is that when the Bill started, the Government took the power by negative resolution of the House to change the 80 per cent. rate. Clearly the plan was to keep reducing it. We moved an amendment to make the change by affirmative resolution and the Government accepted that. When the Bill got to the other place, they said that there had to be separate legislation. Of course, the Government hated that because it stopped the privatisation package, but they could hardly change it when it came back here without saying to the world, "Our plan is revealed." Reluctantly, they had to give in. We welcome that.
      We support the amendment made in the other place that this should be a cost neutral package, we support the 91 per cent. provision that the Government have rejected, and we support the provisions made in the other place to protect small businesses, which are more generous than the measly proposals that the Secretary of State put before the House.
      I am sorry to have had to put the case of dishonour to the right hon. Gentleman, but I believe it to be true. That is what we are considering this evening.
      Mr. Newton: I shall be exceptionally brief for reasons which I hope the House will understand. I have already spoken at great length and I answered a huge number of points that were put to me during my opening speech.
      I have made it clear to my hon. Friends that I recognise, even though I do not always agree with, some of the anxieties they have expressed. The combination of measures which I have brought forward, including the additional safeguard for small businesses, generously defined, in respect of periods of sickness going beyond six weeks, goes a long way to meet their concerns. Taken together with the fact that has emerged from some comments from the Opposition Benches that many small employers do not have occupational sick pay schemes and therefore will not be affected in the same way as those who do, the combination of facts leads me to believe that there are proper and appropriate safeguards which will ensure that large numbers of small businesses gain and will not lose from the package of proposals which I have put forward.
      7.15 pm
      I wish to make only one or two other points. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) will regret in due course the persistent use of words such as "dishonour" and "dishonourable". I will not quarrel with her at length, but this enables me to wrap up almost everything that I want to say to Opposition Members. I see nothing dishonourable, in a context in which there are endless demands for additional social security spending on many good causes, in being prepared to look across the scene to identify the areas where changes have taken place since the beginning of the welfare state and to make sure that we are spending the money which we can make available, however much it is, in the best way that we can spend it.
      216
      I say to the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that the growth of occupational sick pay schemes represents a big change in the perception of people about where the burdens of looking after short-term sickness should lie. Employers have accepted a greater share of that burden. In those circumstances, I welcome the opportunity and the scope to divert more of the resources which I can make available from the taxpayer and the contributer to the poorer pensioners who do not have much money, to those in residential care and nursing homes and to the long-term sick and disabled.
      I will not accept that that is dishonourable. I will not apologise for it. I think that this is a sensible package, improved by the amendments that I have proposed, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.—[Special entry.]
      Lords amendment No. 3: In page 1, line 14, leave out "80" and insert "91"
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Newton.]
      The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 236.

      Division No. 57]

      [7.17 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alexander, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Allason, Rupert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Chope, Christopher

      Amos, Alan

      Churchill, Mr

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Atkins, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Atkinson, David

      Conway, Derek

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Baldry, Tony

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Batiste, Spencer

      Couchman, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Critchley, Julian

      Bendall, Vivian

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Curry, David

      Benyon, W.

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

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Day, Stephen

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Devlin, Tim

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boswell, Tim

      Dunn, Bob

      Bottomley, Peter

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Eggar, Tim

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bowis, John

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Evennett, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fallon, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Favell, Tony

      Bright, Graham

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fishburn, John Dudley

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

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Forman, Nigel

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      Burns, Simon

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Burt, Alistair

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Butler, Chris

      Franks, Cecil

      Butterfill, John

      Freeman, Roger

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      French, Douglas

      217

      Fry, Pete

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gardiner, Sir George

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Maclean, David

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Madel, David

      Gorst, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mans, Keith

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Maples, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marland, Paul

      Gregory, Conal

      Marlow, Tony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Grist, Ian

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Ground, Patrick

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Hague, William

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hannam, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Harris, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hayes, Jerry

      Moate, Roger

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hayward, Robert

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mudd, David

      Hill, James

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Hind, Kenneth

      Needham, Richard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Norris, Steve

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Page, Richard

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Paice, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Irvine, Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Jack, Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Janman, Tim

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Jessel, Toby

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Portillo, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Price, Sir David

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Raffan, Keith

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Key, Robert

      Redwood, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Knapman, Roger

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Knowles, Michael

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Knox, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rost, Peter

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lord, Michael

      Shelton, Sir William

      218

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Trippier, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Sims, Roger

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Viggers, Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Walden, George

      Speed, Keith

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waller, Gary

      Squire, Robin

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Ward, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Steen, Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Watts, John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wells, Bowen

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sumberg, David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wilkinson, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Wood, Timothy

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Thorne, Neil

      Thurnham, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Allen, Graham

      Corbett, Robin

      Alton, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Anderson, Donald

      Cousins, Jim

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cox, Tom

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Crowther, Stan

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cryer, Bob

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cummings, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Darling, Alistair

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Barron, Kevin

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Battle, John

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

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dewar, Donald

      Beith, A. J.

      Dixon, Don

      Bell, Stuart

      Douglas, Dick

      Bellotti, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Benton, Joseph

      Eadie, Alexander

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fatchett, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Faulds, Andrew

      Boateng, Paul

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boyes, Roland

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

      Bradley, Keith

      Fisher, Mark

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Derek

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Foulkes, George

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fraser, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Buckley, George J.

      Galbraith, Sam

      Caborn, Richard

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      George, Bruce

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gould, Bryan

      Cartwright, John

      Graham, Thomas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      219

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Grocott, Bruce

      McAllion, John

      Hardy, Peter

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Haynes, Frank

      McCartney, Ian

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      McFall, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      McKelvey, William

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      McLeish, Henry

      Home Robertson, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Hood, Jimmy

      McMaster, Gordon

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Howells, Geraint

      McWilliam, John

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Madden, Max

      Hoyle, Doug

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Marek, Dr John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Illsley, Eric

      Martlew, Eric

      Ingram, Adam

      Maxton, John

      Janner, Greville

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Meacher, Michael

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Meale, Alan

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Michael, Alun

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Kilfedder, James

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Morley, Elliot

      Lambie, David

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Lamond, James

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Mullin, Chris

      Leighton, Ron

      Murphy, Paul

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Nellist, Dave

      Lewis, Terry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Litherland, Robert

      O'Brien, William

      Livingstone, Ken

      O'Hara, Edward

      Livsey, Richard

      O'Neill, Martin

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Parry, Robert

      ".—(1) In section 9 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, before subsection (2) (meaning of "contributions payments") there shall be inserted—

      "(1B) For the purposes of this section, a payment of statutory sick pay which an employer is liable to make to an employee for any day qualifies for small employers' relief if the employer is a small employer who has before that day been liable to make such payments of statutory sick pay as entitle him to relief in respect of that payment.

      (1C) For the purposes of this section, "small employer" shall be defined by regulations by reference to the aggregate of the employer's and the employee's contributions payments for any prescribed period, such aggregate to be reviewed annually having regard to the increase in earnings and the effect of any such increase on the amount of contributions payments.

      (1D) Regulations shall prescribe the payments of statutory sick pay that entitle a small employer to small employer's relief in respect of any particular payment, and that entitlement shall be determined by reference to the number of weeks for which the employer has been liable to pay statutory sick pay in respect of the employee in question in a prescribed period.

      (1E) The first regulations made under this section shall prescribe that the amount of the aggregate of the employer's and the employee's contributions payments, and the number of weeks for which the employer has been liable to pay statutory sick pay in respect of the employee in question shall be in accordance with the following table:—

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6 agreed to.—[Special entry.]
      Lords amendment No. 7: After clause 1, insert the following new clause—Small employers' relief—
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 7, leave out from 'day' to end of line 35 and insert—
      `which forms part of a period of incapacity for work qualifies for small employers' relief if—

      (a) on that day the employer is a small employer who has been liable to pay statutory sick pay in respect of that employee for earlier days forming part of that period of incapacity for work; and

      (b) the aggregate amount of those payments exceeds the entitlement threshold, that is to say an amount equal to W x R, where—

      W is a prescribed number of weeks; and

      R is the appropriate weekly rate set out in section above;

      and regulations may make provision for calculating the entitlement threshold in any case where the employee's entitlement to statutory sick pay is calculated by reference to different weekly rates in the same period of incapacity for work.

      (1C) If the Secretary of State by order so provides for any tax year, the following subsections shall have effect for that tax year in substitution for subsection (1B) above—
      "(1BB) For the purposes of this section, a payment of statutory sick pay which an employer is liable to make to an employee for any day in a tax year qualifies for small employers' relief if—

      (a) on that day the employer is a small employer who has been liable to make payments of statutory sick pay for earlier days in that tax year in respect of any employees of his; and

      (b) the aggregate of any such payments for those earlier days exceeds a prescribed sum.

      (1BC) In any case where—

      (a) an employer is liable to make two or more payments of statutory sick pay for the same day in a tax year, and

      (b) by virtue of the condition in subsection (1BB)(b) above, none of those payments would qualify for small employers' relief, but

      (c) that condition would have been fulfilled in relation to a proportion of the aggregate amount of those payments, had he been liable—

      (i) to pay as statutory sick pay for an earlier day in that tax year, instead of for the day in question, the smallest part of that aggregate that would enable that condition to be fulfilled, and

      (ii) to pay the remainder as statutory sick pay for the day in question,

      he shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1BB) above

      Aggregate contributions in the previous contributions year

      Number of weeks before small employers' relief applies

      less than £15,000

      6

      less than £10,000

      3

      less than £5,000

      0

      (1F) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations under subsection (1C) or (1D) above shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."

      (2) In subsection (2) of that section (meaning of "contributions payments" in subsections (1)(a) and (1A)) for the words "and subsection (1A)" there shall be substituted the words "and subsection (1C)".

      (3) In Part II of Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1986 (questions for the Secretary of State) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (v) there shall be inserted the words "or

      (vi) the amount of an employer's contributions payments for any period for the purposes of regulations under section 9(1C) of that Act.""
      as if he had been liable to make payments of statutory sick pay as mentioned in paragraph (c) above instead of as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.
      (1BD) If, in a case not falling within subsection (1BC) above—

      (a) an employer is liable to make a single payment of statutory sick pay for a day in a tax year, and

      (b) by virtue of the condition in subsection (1BB)(b) above, that payment would not qualify for small employers' relief, but

      (c) that condition would have been fulfilled in relation to a proportion of that payment, had he been liable—

      (i) to pay as statutory sick pay for an earlier day in that tax year, instead of for the day in question, the smallest part of that payment that would enable that condition to be fulfilled, and

      (ii) to pay the remainder as statutory sick pay for the day in question,

      he shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1BB) above as if he had been liable to make payments of statutory sick pay as mentioned in paragraph (c) above instead of the payment mentioned in paragraph (a) above.";
      and, without prejudice to section 45(1) below, the Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional or consequential
      provision or savings as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with the coming into force of an order under this subsection of the expiry or revocation of any such order and the consequent revival of subsection (1B) above.
      (1D) For the purposes of this section, "small employer" shall have the meaning assigned to it by regulations, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any such regulations—

      (a) may define that expression by reference to the amount of an employer's contributions payments for any prescribed period; and

      (b) if they do so, may in that connection make provision for the amount of those payments for that prescribed period—

      (i) to be determined without regard to any deductions that may be made from them under this section or under any other enactment or instrument; and

      (ii) in prescribed circumstances, to be adjusted, estimated or otherwise attributed to him by reference to their amount in any other prescribed period.

      (1E) If and so long as regulations under subsection (1D) above prescribe an amount which an employer's contributions payments must not exceed if he is to be a small employer for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State shall in each tax year consider whether that amount should be increased, having regard to any increase in the aggregate amount of all primary and secondary Class 1 contributions payable in Great Britain and such other matters as he considers appropriate.'.—[Mr. Newton.]
      Question put,That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 233.

      Division No. 57]

      [7.17 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alexander, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Allason, Rupert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Chope, Christopher

      Amos, Alan

      Churchill, Mr

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Atkins, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Atkinson, David

      Conway, Derek

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Baldry, Tony

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Batiste, Spencer

      Couchman, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Critchley, Julian

      Bendall, Vivian

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Curry, David

      Benyon, W.

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

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Day, Stephen

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Devlin, Tim

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boswell, Tim

      Dunn, Bob

      Bottomley, Peter

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Eggar, Tim

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bowis, John

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Evennett, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fallon, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Favell, Tony

      Bright, Graham

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fishburn, John Dudley

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

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Forman, Nigel

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      Burns, Simon

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Burt, Alistair

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Butler, Chris

      Franks, Cecil

      Butterfill, John

      Freeman, Roger

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      French, Douglas

      217

      Fry, Pete

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gardiner, Sir George

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Maclean, David

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Madel, David

      Gorst, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mans, Keith

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Maples, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marland, Paul

      Gregory, Conal

      Marlow, Tony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Grist, Ian

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Ground, Patrick

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Hague, William

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hannam, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Harris, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hayes, Jerry

      Moate, Roger

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hayward, Robert

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mudd, David

      Hill, James

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Hind, Kenneth

      Needham, Richard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Norris, Steve

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Page, Richard

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Paice, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Irvine, Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Jack, Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Janman, Tim

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Jessel, Toby

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Portillo, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Price, Sir David

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Raffan, Keith

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Key, Robert

      Redwood, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Knapman, Roger

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Knowles, Michael

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Knox, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rost, Peter

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lord, Michael

      Shelton, Sir William

      218

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Trippier, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Sims, Roger

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Viggers, Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Walden, George

      Speed, Keith

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waller, Gary

      Squire, Robin

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Ward, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Steen, Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Watts, John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wells, Bowen

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sumberg, David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wilkinson, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Wood, Timothy

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Thorne, Neil

      Thurnham, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Allen, Graham

      Corbett, Robin

      Alton, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Anderson, Donald

      Cousins, Jim

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cox, Tom

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Crowther, Stan

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cryer, Bob

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cummings, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Darling, Alistair

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Barron, Kevin

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Battle, John

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

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dewar, Donald

      Beith, A. J.

      Dixon, Don

      Bell, Stuart

      Douglas, Dick

      Bellotti, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Benton, Joseph

      Eadie, Alexander

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fatchett, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Faulds, Andrew

      Boateng, Paul

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boyes, Roland

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

      Bradley, Keith

      Fisher, Mark

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Derek

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Foulkes, George

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fraser, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Buckley, George J.

      Galbraith, Sam

      Caborn, Richard

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      George, Bruce

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gould, Bryan

      Cartwright, John

      Graham, Thomas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      219

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Grocott, Bruce

      McAllion, John

      Hardy, Peter

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Haynes, Frank

      McCartney, Ian

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      McFall, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      McKelvey, William

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      McLeish, Henry

      Home Robertson, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Hood, Jimmy

      McMaster, Gordon

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Howells, Geraint

      McWilliam, John

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Madden, Max

      Hoyle, Doug

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Marek, Dr John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Illsley, Eric

      Martlew, Eric

      Ingram, Adam

      Maxton, John

      Janner, Greville

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Meacher, Michael

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Meale, Alan

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Michael, Alun

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Kilfedder, James

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Morley, Elliot

      Lambie, David

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Lamond, James

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Mullin, Chris

      Leighton, Ron

      Murphy, Paul

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Nellist, Dave

      Lewis, Terry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Litherland, Robert

      O'Brien, William

      Livingstone, Ken

      O'Hara, Edward

      Livsey, Richard

      O'Neill, Martin

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Parry, Robert

      Patchett, Terry

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Snape, Peter

      Pendry, Tom

      Soley, Clive

      Pike, Peter L.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Speller, Tony

      Prescott, John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Stott, Roger

      Radice, Giles

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Randall, Stuart

      Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Reid, Dr John

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Richardson, Jo

      Trimble, David

      Robertson, George

      Turner, Dennis

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wallace, James

      Rooker, Jeff

      Walley, Joan

      Rooney, Terence

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Salmond, Alex

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wilson, Brian

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Winnick, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Short, Clare

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Sillars, Jim

      Worthington, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wray, Jimmy

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

      Tellers for the Noes:

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

      Mr. Jack Thompson and

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Division No. 58]

      [7.32 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Couchman, James

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Critchley, Julian

      Alexander, Richard

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Curry, David

      Allason, Rupert

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

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Amess, David

      Day, Stephen

      Amos, Alan

      Devlin, Tim

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Ashby, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dunn, Bob

      Atkins, Robert

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Atkinson, David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Eggar, Tim

      Baldry, Tony

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evennett, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fallon, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Favell, Tony

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Benyon, W.

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Forman, Nigel

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Forth, Eric

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Boswell, Tim

      Franks, Cecil

      Bottomley, Peter

      Freeman, Roger

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      French, Douglas

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Fry, Peter

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gale, Roger

      Bowis, John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

      Gorst, John

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burns, Simon

      Gregory, Conal

      Burt, Alistair

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Butler, Chris

      Grist, Ian

      Butterfill, John

      Ground, Patrick

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Grylls, Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hague, William

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Chope, Christopher

      Hannam, John

      Churchill, Mr

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

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Harris, David

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Conway, Derek

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hayward, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      224

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hill, James

      Mudd, David

      Hind, Kenneth

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Needham, Richard

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Neubert, Sir Michael

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

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Norris, Steve

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Page, Richard

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Paice, James

      Irvine, Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Jack, Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Janman, Tim

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Jessel, Toby

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Portillo, Michael

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Raffan, Keith

      Key, Robert

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Redwood, John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Knapman, Roger

      Riddick, Graham

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Knowles, Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Knox, David

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Rost, Peter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lilley, Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lord, Michael

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Shersby, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sims, Roger

      Maclean, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Speed, Keith

      Malins, Humfrey

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Mans, Keith

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maples, John

      Squire, Robin

      Marland, Paul

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stern, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thorne, Neil

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      225

      Tracey, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Tredinnick, David

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Trotter, Neville

      Whitney, Ray

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Viggers, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Wilshire, David

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Wolfson, Mark

      Walden, George

      Wood, Timothy

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Yeo, Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Ward, John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Watts, John

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dixon, Don

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Douglas, Dick

      Allen, Graham

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Alton, David

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Anderson, Donald

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Eadie, Alexander

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fatchett, Derek

      Ashton, Joe

      Faulds, Andrew

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fisher, Mark

      Barron, Kevin

      Flynn, Paul

      Battle, John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Beckett, Margaret

      Foster, Derek

      Beith, A. J.

      Foulkes, George

      Bell, Stuart

      Fraser, John

      Bellotti, David

      Fyfe, Maria

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Galbraith, Sam

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

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Benton, Joseph

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      George, Bruce

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gordon, Mildred

      Blair, Tony

      Gould, Bryan

      Boateng, Paul

      Graham, Thomas

      Boyes, Roland

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bradley, Keith

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hardy, Peter

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Haynes, Frank

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Buckley, George J.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Caborn, Richard

      Hinchliffe, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hood, Jimmy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Howells, Geraint

      Cartwright, John

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Illsley, Eric

      Cousins, Jim

      Ingram, Adam

      Cox, Tom

      Janner, Greville

      Crowther, Stan

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Darling, Alistair

      Kennedy, Charles

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kilfedder, James

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dewar, Donald

      Lambie, David

      226

      Lamond, James

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Radice, Giles

      Leighton, Ron

      Randall, Stuart

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Lewis, Terry

      Reid, Dr John

      Litherland, Robert

      Richardson, Jo

      Livingstone, Ken

      Robertson, George

      Livsey, Richard

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Rooney, Terence

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAllion, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCartney, Ian

      Salmond, Alex

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McFall, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McKelvey, William

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      McLeish, Henry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Maclennan, Robert

      Short, Clare

      McMaster, Gordon

      Sillars, Jim

      McNamara, Kevin

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Madden, Max

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

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Marshall, David (Shettloston)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Snape, Peter

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Soley, Clive

      Martlew, Eric

      Spearing, Nigel

      Maxton, John

      Speller, Tony

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Meacher, Michael

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meale, Alan

      Stott, Roger

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Michael, Alun

      Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Trimble, David

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Turner, Dennis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wallace, James

      Morley, Elliot

      Walley, Joan

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mullin, Chris

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Murphy, Paul

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Nellist, Dave

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      O'Brien, William

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Wilson, Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Winnick, David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Parry, Robert

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Patchett, Terry

      Worthington, Tony

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wray, Jimmy

      Pendry, Tom

      Pike, Peter L.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Mr. Jack Thompson and

      Prescott, John

      Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendments (b) and (c) to the Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.—[Special entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.
      Ordered,
      That a Committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 3.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Secretary Newton, Mr. Nicholas Scott, Mr. Irvine Patnick, Mr. Alfred Morris and Mr. Allen McKay be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Ordered,
      That three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Ordered,
      That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Namibia Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
7.47 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to modify existing legislation to place Namibia on an equal footing with other Commonwealth countries for the purposes of United Kingdom law. It is a relatively uncontentious process—at least I hope that it is. However, the Bill gives us an opportunity to consider Namibia's achievements as it approaches the first anniversary of its independence and its membership of the Commonwealth.
For me and many hon. Members on both sides of the House, this is a happy occasion when we can welcome the 50th member of the Commonwealth. It is also probably the best time for me to be involved in such a Bill, as I returned last Saturday from my first visit to Windhoek. I was delighted to meet President Nujoma and present to him the Government's gift to independent Namibia of a parliamentary mace. It was a suitable gift. Namibia has sincerely and enthusiastically embraced the way of parliamentary democracy. It is already demonstrating to other countries in the region that democracy is the best way to stability and prosperity.
Namibia is also determined to end the hostilities that divided the country before independence. It is pursuing a policy of national reconciliation designed to ensure that there is a place in its new society for all Namibians, regardless of their previous loyalties. Those policies are well worthy of support. Therefore, we have built up a sound working relationship with the President and the new Government. Our aid programme is an important element in that relationship. We have pledged £10 million over three years, which is to be devoted to police training, education, health, and, indeed, other projects.
Our assistance is designed to encourage good government, accountability and cost-effective use of resources. At President Nujoma's request, and outside the £10 million package of aid, we are also helping to train the Namibian army, providing vital support to maintain law and order and achieve the stability which is essential for sound development. We can be justly proud of our military training team which is training soldiers in many parts of the country. I was pleased and privileged to meet several members of the British military advisory and training team in Namibia and to talk with Namibian soldiers from all over the country who expressed, with increasing firmness of grasp of the English language, their pleasure and indeed their appreciation of what they were gaining from training with the British Army.
The Bill follows earlier precedents, the most recent of which was the Pakistan Act 1990. It covers Namibia's relationship with the Commonwealth Institute. It provides for Namibian forces to be included in the definition of "Commonwealth forces" so as to define their legal status, for example when training in the United Kingdom. It provides for the exercise of command and discipline when British and Commonwealth forces are serving together and for attachments of members of one force to another.
The Bill also ensures that regulatory powers applying to the whaling industry will not apply to ships registered in

229
Namibia, as it is not appropriate for those powers to extend to the shipping of independent members of the Commonwealth.
Clause 2(2) deems the measure to have come into force on 21 March 1990, the day Namibia achieved independence and became a member of the Commonwealth. There is no technical reason for that, but there is strong symbolic value in deeming the provisions of the measure to come into effect on Namibia's independence day. The immigration and electoral implications of Namibia's admission to the Commonwealth have been dealt with separately by an Order in Council which came into effect on 20 August 1990. That added Namibia to the list of Commonwealth countries in schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981.
My two and a half days in Namibia made me happy because I could see a country coming to grips with many problems and new challenges but with an enthusiasm and willingness to learn that I have rarely seen anywhere before. It is right that we should help Namibia. We are at that vital time when we are sitting down together, with Ministers and with the director of the National Planning Commission, to work out how we can help the people of Namibia best in the way that they agree is what they want.
It is very much a partnership in development in Namibia, with its population of just over 1·6 million people, but a vast country which needs a lot of help from its friends. We are very much a friend of Namibia, and I was a warm friend of the Namibian people last week. They welcome us in every way in helping them along their new path as an independent country and a member of the Commonwealth.
7.52 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister is right. The Bill is welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. Its details are technical, but it marks an event of great importance. The independence of Namibia, celebrated on 21 March last year, was a great achievement for the international community, particularly for the United Nations and most of all for the Namibian people.
The months since independence have seen a remarkable attempt at reconciliation in a country wounded by years of war and division. The SWAPO Government have been resolutely pragmatic in pursuing their goal of national reconciliation, as the right hon. Lady said. Who would have imagined that a new police training college would be opened last February with 82 new recruits from SWAPO members and 90 former members of the securfity force Koevoet.
The determination with which the Government and people have set about healing divisions and rebuilding the country deserves great praise. But the magnitude of the task cannot be overestimated, as the Minister said. South African rulers have left behind widespread deprivation, gross inequality, unemployment, abysmally inadequate services in black areas, heavy dependence on mining, reliance on South African markets, debt and a massive budget deficit.
Whites represent 7 per cent. of the population yet receive 70 per cent. of the income. For every 1,000 births, 10 times as many black children die before their fifth birthday as white children. Under South African rule,
230
more than half of Namibia's GNP went to foreign companies in the South African administration. Only white children enjoyed free compulsory education. About 70 per cent. of Namibia's teachers lack the necessary basic qualifications to teach.
Now that independence has been achieved, the great potential of the economy must be developed for the benefit of the majority of Namibians. But the economy is distorted and fragile. The exodus of South African and then of the United Nations transition assistance group forces, and the return of 40,000 refugees, are to be welcomed, but they put great strains on Namibia's resources. The Government are aiming for annual economic growth of between 3 and 4 per cent., but current growth is stagnant, if not negative. A report by the International Monetary Fund says:
"The nation has a strong resource base that offers substantial economic potential."
Realising that potential will be difficult. The international community must do everything possible to help with the reconstruction of Namibia, and Walvis bay must be one of the first priorities. The biggest obstacle to revamping Namibia's economy is the continuing occupation by South Africa of Walvis bay. The port is an integral part of the Namibian economy and could be a lifeline for the whole region. Without it, trade cannot flourish.
Namibia's fishing waters are its most valuable asset. According to the World bank, fishing alone could account for a doubling of GNP over the next five to six years. But South Africa's continuing occupation of Walvis bay, Namibia's only deep sea port, is a major impediment to the development of the fishing industry. Uncertainty over the port's future is slowing down investment in that crucial sector, and if the fish are not clearly products of an ACP country and processed on ACP territory, their special access to the EC is in jeopardy.
South Africa's claim to 12 offshore islands means that it claims 15 per cent. of Namibian waters and, therefore, 15 per cent. of the revenues from concessions granted to fishing companies operating in those waters. Other countries, including Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia, have expressed keen interest in using Walvis bay as a trade outlet. Plans to export coal from Zimbabwe are already under way. But the opportunity for the port to contribute to regional economic development can be fully realised only once the port is back in Namibia's hands.
Mr. John Carlisle: Does the hon. Lady believe that, if the scenario that she has painted were to come about, South Africa would have any part to play in the future of Walvis bay, perhaps not on the present lines but in some future trading arrangement?
Mrs. Clwyd: Yes, on the same basis as many other countries would contribute—on proper commercial terms. That is the position that one would expect South Africa to take if it ended its illegal occupation. The United Nations Security Council set May 1975 as the deadline for its withdrawal. The deadline passed and the UN did nothing. In 1978, the Security Council passed resolution 432 calling for the reintegration of Walvis bay into Namibia. Now, strong international pressure—which must include friends of South Africa such as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle)—is needed to implement that resolution.
I understand that since 1979 the British Government have not once gone on record expressing their concern

231
about South Africa's continuing defiance of the UN. Is the Foreign Office so keen to encourage Pretoria—one could not blame the Foreign Office for wishing to continue to do that—that it will remain silent about Namibia's lifeline? I hope that that is not the case.
Ministers have in the past replied to our concerns about Walvis bay by saying that the Namibian and South African Governments should negotiate the issue bilaterally and are prepared to do so. If that is the case, may we be told what evidence there is that South Africa is prepared to negotiate and what progress is being made?
The Namibian Government are determined to aim for self-reliance and the Minister is well aware of that. They certainly have no intention of becoming dependent on an international begging bowl. The conference for private investors taking place there this week demonstrates the importance attached to private sector growth, joint ventures and foreign investment. Foreign Governments and official donors still have a major role to play, particularly in the first few transitional years.
The population has high hopes and it is crucial that we help the Government to meet some of their expectations as soon as possible. The British Government's immediate contribution of £10 million on independence is, of course, welcome but that cannot be it for the next three years. After all, independent Namibia—a country with which Britain has been closely linked for decades—is now setting out on a bold path of economic and political regeneration and has just joined the Commonwealth. Surely it deserves more than £10 million over three years. After all, we gave Poland £100 million for economic stabilisation, without hesitation.
In practical terms, the ODA's contribution amounts to sending out some experts and to giving advice. The main sector of need identified by the ODA before independence was English language training, yet nearly a year later one would search in vain to find more than two British educationists working on that scheme.
In the sphere of greatest human need—the impoverished subsistence farming on which 70 per cent. of Namibians depend—it seems that the ODA has done little except to send out one agronomist on an exploratory visit. It is not as though independence came just last month or was an unexpected surprise. It is embarrassing that the official handout from the Namibian Government lists Germany, Sweden, Finland, the United States and Norway as significant donors, but not Britain. Black farmers need support services and infrastructure, but, most of all, they need land. The Namibian Government are holding a conference on that crucial issue in June. Land reform has always been politically explosive, but it is essential if the poorest farmers are to be able to provide for themselves, rural communities are to develop and the grossly skewed economy is to develop in a more balanced way. I hope that the ODA will respond quickly to whatever is decided at the land conference. Namibians have proved themselves willing to put pragmatism before ideology, and I hope that the Government will not allow their ideology to inhibit support for vital land reform, if and when there are reforms in Namibia.
Expanded trade is even more important than aid. Namibia's trade is overwhelmingly dependent on South Africa and a few commodities selling at low and stagnant prices. Diversification into new markets and new goods must be supported. Namibia's accession to the Lome IV treaty is therefore welcomed. The next step should be an
232
EC-Namibia fisheries agreement to promote the development of an indigenous fishing sector. Is the United Kingdom doing anything to secure that? Why have our Government not yet signed Lome IV?
Namibia does not have the crushing debt burden suffered by some of its neighbours, but the justification for debt release is nevertheless overwhelming. Nambia's debt was illegally incurred by the South African regime. I see no reason why the people of Namibia should be expected to repay about £220 million borrowed by their oppressors to exploit them. What is the Government's view, and what action is being taken on what must be considered an illegitimate debt?
Political development in a newly independent Namibia is just as important as economic development. The SWAPO Government are to be congratulated on their commitment, as the Minister said, to multi-party democracy. I expect the international community to give every encouragement and support to its development. However, despite the Government's fine words about human rights and democracy, they do not seem to be seizing the opportunity to establish them firmly in Namibia. Why are they giving only £10 million over three years to Namibia when they can afford to give £40 million, £50 million and even £60 million to Malawi, Kenya and Nigeria each year?
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am trying to follow what the hon. Lady is saying, but she is painting a picture as though Namibia were our original responsibility. It was the responsibility, first, of Germany, then of the League of Nations and then it came under the South African mandate. It is basically a German-South African-United Nations problem. What we contribute surely amounts to a generous gesture on the part of our Government.
Mrs. Clwyd: I am surprised that the hon. Lady thinks that only one country should feel any responsibility towards Namibia. I am sure that all hon. Members feel that they have a big responsibility towards Namibia. It is not just a matter for one country.
Mr. John Carlisle: Why?
Mrs. Clwyd: If that is not clear to the hon. Gentleman he should ask the South African Government, with whom he is so closely associated.
Namibia has joined the Commonwealth and I think that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) would agree that, in the commonwealth of nations, we all have responsibilities towards each other.
The past abuse of human rights, by both sides fighting the war, has been gruesomely documented by many sources. The new constitution includes important human rights guarantees.
As the main provider of training for the Namibian police and security forces, the British Government have a special obligation to ensure that the new commitment to human rights can be implemented. Amnesty International has called for a theoretical and practical course on human rights to be incorporated into the police and military training programmes run by the British, and I am sure that we wholeheartedly endorse that call. I understand that Namibians are in the United Kingdom now for Ministry of Defence training. Is human rights training included?
The changes in Namibia over the past year have been enormous, but the entire southern Africa region is

233
undergoing a gradual transformation. The human and economic costs of South African aggression and destabilisation have been astronomic. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa estimates that southern Africa needs at least $2·5 billion a year, over four years, to repair the economic damage caused by South Africa alone.
Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Clwyd: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. We are well aware of his interests, and I hope he will contribute to the debate at the appropriate time.
Namibia has a key role in southern Africa. Investment in Namibia and in the region must go hand in hand. British aid to SADCC—the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference—is low compared with other donors. But I am particularly concerned to find that EC aid to SADCC has fallen significantly in real terms from Lome III to Lomé IV, just at a time when SADCC needs additional resources to incorporate Namibia into its programme of action.
New opportunities for democracy and development exist in Namibia and are emerging throughout southern Africa that simply have not been seen before. We must grasp those opportunities and invest in them. Namibia's potential for political and economic success, in a region that has been so riven with strife, and in a continent where so many economies are shrinking and so many dictators remain, is enormous. I urge the Government to realise the magnitude of the task of reconstruction, and to ensure that Britain's contribution matches that task.
8.9 pm
Sir George Gardiner: The Bill is commendably brief and I trust that my speech will be likewise. I join in giving the Bill a warm welcome from the Government Back Benches.
I well remember in November 1989 leading a parliamentary observer mission made up of Members of Parliament from three European countries under the auspices of the International Freedom Foundation to observe the first free elections under United Nations auspices. We were happy to conclude from our observations that the elections were as free and fair as possible in the circumstances and I have followed Namibia's progress ever since.
The immediate gain from those elections, in which the South West Africa People's Organisation got less than two thirds of the votes cast, was that SWAPO came together with old enemies—
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman, perhaps with certain humility, compare in percentage terms the popular support for SWAPO with that for his own party at the last election?
Sir George Gardiner: This is not the right occasion to be drawn into such a comparison. If I were to answer that question, no doubt I would be out of order anyway.
The point that I was trying to make, which Labour Members might listen to and they might even agree with, is that the one gain was that SWAPO came together with its old enemies to draft a constitution—a good constitution—and then to join them in Government. That
234
good start has been maintained and I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on that.
We have now a Namibia which is a multi-party democracy and that is a gain. It has an entrenched Bill of Rights, which is highly commendable. Despite SWAPO's Marxist past, it has taken a constructive attitude to existing and new businesses and attracting foreign investment.
Despite the points made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), the Namibian Government has, by contrast, shown some restraint over pressing its claim to Walvis bay and has maintained good relations with South Africa, on which it is to be congratulated.
There are some anxieties. Fusing the armed forces of the two former warring sides into one army, the fighters of the People's Liberation Army of Namibia on one side and Koevoet police members on the other, led to predictable problems, some of which have yet to be resolved. I hope that the provisions of the Bill with regard to visiting forces will help in an integration which must be fair to all parties.
The other anxiety that I encountered when visiting Namibia was on behalf of the bushmen whom I met at Omega. They were concerned about whether their position would be properly protected under the new constitution and I gather that that concern persists. Nevertheless, that does not detract from the fact that we have a new, independent and free Namibia which has got off to a good start and is certainly a worthy member of the commonwealth of nations.
8.13 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I rise briefly to express warm support for the Bill on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. As the Minister for Overseas Development said, as did the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), Namibia is moving in a positive and constructive way.
During the long period of the war and the agitation few doubted that independence would eventually be achieved, but many feared that the bitterness that would follow would leave suppurating wounds which would last a long time. It is remarkable that that problem seems to have been quickly overcome, and that commands our admiration and support.
I have visited Namibia only once and that was while it was still under the South African mandate. At that time I had a long meeting with Mr. Ahtisaari, the Finnish United Nations representative. This is an opportunity to pay tribute once more to the long involvement of United Nations officials in preparing the way for Namibia's independence and her entry into the Commonwealth.
I had four questions to ask, but three have already been answered by the Minister. One was a question on aid, another on debt—an important matter—and the third a question on Walvis bay. My fourth question results in part from my own curiosity. One of the fascinating things about Namibia is a unique little town called Swakopmund, the majority of whose occupants were Germans.
There was much worry during the war about the Germans' safety and even talk of taking them in jumbo jets back to Germany. I understand that many of those fears and anxieties have been resolved. The Minister mentioned a commitment of the new Namibian open society to the involvement of all its people from whatever background.

235
I would be interested to know how the German element, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), is fitting into the new independent country.
I end simply by repeating that I warmly welcome the Bill and the way in which the Minister presented it to us. I am sure that there will be no opposition to it from any Bench tonight.
8.16 pm
Sir Anthony Durant: I welcome the Bill. It is a great step forward that Namibia has become a member of the Commonwealth. It is important to emphasise that it applied to become a member. That is significant for the growth of the Commonwealth.
I have had the privilege of being chairman of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the past three years and we strongly welcome Namibia's membership of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The British branch of that association is planning to send a seminar on parliamentary democracy to Namibia, and that is a good step forward. Parliamentarians and Officers of the House will present that seminar. Namibia has invited them to do so and has welcomed the prospect of such a seminar.
I am particularly delighted to speak for a few moments on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and to say how much we welcome what has happened in Namibia. Many hon. Members have already said how remarkable it is that a country that went through such a traumatic time has since worked so closely together, healing wounds which many of us thought would take generations to heal.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was a little niggly in her approach to the debate. One cannot compare loans to Poland with grants to Namibia. They are different things. She was not quite as magnanimous as she might have been.
On that note, I welcome the Bill. I hope that Namibia goes from strength to strength. Perhaps one day it will invite me to go there.
8.18 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this relatively short and uncontroversial debate on a Bill which will receive its Second Reading without dissent.
I have always taken an extremely close and positive interest in southern African affairs. I went to Namibia in 1989 during the process which led to independence, at which time I was accompanied by John McDonald, a human rights lawyer, and guided by Alison Harvey of the Namibian Christian Exchange, which sponsored the visit.
When the election process started in April, there were certain difficulties—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who was there, can testify. At the time of my visit in May, although there was an air of enthusiasm and a determination to achieve independence, some anxiety remained about the role of Casspirs and Koevoet. In any event, we offered criticism where it was necessary, and gave encouragement where it was due—as well as voicing strong words, when we thought that would be useful.
236
We have all been greatly encouraged by subsequent events. The Minister referred to Namibia's determination to make democracy work. Everyone whom we met during the pre-election period was obviously committed to that objective. The Minister spoke also of national reconciliation, and we found a great deal of commitment to that as well. The campaign for the three Rs included reconciliation, which was viewed as essential once independence was achieved. Even in the difficult days when many problems remained to be overcome, there was enthusiasm and a determination to achieve independence, and to make it work.
We all welcome Namibia's admission as the 50th member of the commonwealth of nations, for many reasons. South Africa is still undergoing the difficult process of ending apartheid. We applaud the measures that President de Klerk announced last Friday, but we recognise that there may be many obstacles in the way. Nevertheless, the example of Namibia's success on their doorstep must encourage people in South Africa in the belief that change can work. I look forward to the clay —which I hope will be in the not-too-distant future—when the House debates the admission of South Africa as the 51st member of the Commonwealth. Unanimous approval of that by the House would mean that South Africa had done everything that we wanted in ending apartheid, and in making the advances that we all want in that country. The sooner that day comes, the better. I am sure that it will be widely welcomed, even if some right hon. and hon. Members would not be too happy about such a development.
In the case of Namibia's elections, the role specified for the United Nations was of supervising and controlling the elections. That was very different from the monitoring role that the UN has traditionally played and should serve as a lesson to other countries where we want a return to democracy. Token monitoring is not sufficient and we hope that the United Nations will supervise and control future elections, to ensure true democracy in many more countries.
The Minister referred to the fishing industry, whose importance to Namibia is widely recognised. In fact, I raised that matter with the Minister at Question Time yesterday. The fishing industry is important not only in terms of employment but to the nation's economy. We acknowledge the difficult negotiations concerning Walvis bay, but I hope that they will reach a satisfactory conclusion soon. Namibia's fishing industry is important also to Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana and other countries, which would welcome the opportunity to use Walvis bay for their import and export trade. That would also bring economic advantages to Namibia, at a time when it has financial difficulties.
The Minister referred to Namibia's courageous decision to adopt the English language, although Afrikaans is dominant in many parts of the country, as German is in others. Namibia recognises that if it is to take its place in the modern world, it has to adopt the English language in developing as an international nation, and as a member of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations.
Namibia has gone a long way in a short time. I was in South Africa when the announcement was made that it intended to implement United Nations resolution 435 and

237
start the process of granting independence to Namibia which came as a bombshell after so many years of prevarication and of dodging the issue.
We warmly welcome Namibia's entry into the Commonwealth, which will be backdated in the way that the Bill proposes. We wish that country well in the future. I hope that Namibia will serve as an encouragement to its close neighbour, South Africa, in completing the process of ending apartheid, so that those two nations, side by side, can play a major role in the future of the world. I certainly hope that, one day, we shall welcome a South Africa that has taken all the right decisions as the 51st member of the Commonwealth.
8.27 pm
Mr. Cohn Shepherd: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister on the sensitivity and the timing of the Bill, and on enabling it to come into effect on the anniversary of Namibia's independence. I also congratulate Namibia on its subsequent decision to join the Commonwealth. It could not have taken a better one.
The Commonwealth is sometimes described by the world's press, and by our own, as being something less than exciting—but those of us who work in the Commonwealth know full well that it is an expanding, energetic and sympathetic forum. It achieves far more, not through controversy, but by working together—which does not lend itself to journalistic exploitation.
As you, Mr. Speaker, are a former governor of the Commonwealth Institute, I am sure that you would want to associate yourself with my next remark. As one of the institute's present governors, I welcome the opportunity that the legislation offers Namibia to participate in the institute's activities and affairs. It is a fine medium for enabling the nature and the shape of a country in the Commonwealth to be understood in Britain, and in other member countries, too. I look forward, on behalf of all the institute's governors, to Namibia's full participation in its activities.
I reinforce the welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who referred to Namibia's relationship with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Those of us fortunate enough to attend the plenary conference this year in Harare will remember for a long time the contribution made by the representatives of Namibia, who attended as observers on that occasion. The speech by the Deputy Speaker was remarkable in its emotion, perception, generosity and understanding. It certainly had to be one of the high points, together with the contribution made by other members of that delegation. They are now full members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and we shall look forward to their full participation in all activities and panels during the plenary conference in Delhi this coming year. It must be an exciting prospect for them, as it is for us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West mentioned the proposal to develop a parliamentary seminar for Namibia, but I look forward to being able to welcome members of the Namibian House in Westminster at our parliamentary seminars and visits in the near future. I am certain that we both have a lot to give and to receive,
238
and I look forward to a growing relationship and participation in the form of Westminster parliamentary democracy, which is what the Commonwealth is about.
8.30 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng: This is a happy day for Namibia, for the Commonwealth and for the House. Namibia has no greater friends in the House than my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Indeed, they are to a free, non-racial South Africa, and tonight Namibia, what the hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) are to apartheid South Africa—firm friends and advocates. Those hon. Members may well laugh, but they are known in the House as the Castor and Pollux of apologists for apartheid in South Africa. I did say "Pollux"—I do not want to offend the hon. Member for Reigate any more than I intend to. It is refreshing to hear a speech from the hon. Member for Reigate with which one was not totally out of sympathy. The interventions of the hon. Member for Luton, North were entirely in character—unpleasant in the extreme.
I do not want to mar this happy debate by making remarks of a partisan or party political nature because the Minister for Overseas Development, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench, is also a good and firm friend of Namibia, and I well remember a night some time ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—during an Adjournment debate on this subject, when she gave a warm, sensitive speech, which showed that she was especially concerned about the problems that Namibia was facing at that time. Happily, those problems have been overcome. We now look to the right hon. Lady to show what a good and firm friend of Namibia she is by prevailing upon the Treasury and other members of the Cabinet to ensure that she and the Government follow the advice given her by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley about wholehearted support and an aid programme from this country and the European Community, which is vital if this new-found member of the Commonwealth is to get off to the start it deserves.
The decision of the people of Namibia about the use of the English language is important. That language has the capacity to heal some of the wounds that have opened up in that country over the years. It has an important role to play in Namibia's development and in overcoming the appalling education system that existed prior to Namibia's independence.
The British Council must be given all the assistance and support that it needs by the Government so that it can fulfil its important role in Namibia. The British Council has done much to be proud of in Africa. It has contributed much to its development, and to the education of its people. Now it is much needed in Namibia—as it is in South Africa—and it is to be hoped that the right hon. Lady will tell us that she accepts the special role that the British Council has to play in Namibia and will do all she can to further its cause.
So this is a happy night, a night which we shall remember when we look forward to a new member joining the Commonwealth—a multi-party, non-racial state, which is an example to the Commonwealth in general and to South Africa, its neighbour, in particular.
8.35 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) about the English language. I am only thankful that he does not propose to export the Welsh language there, or at least not before he has had some advice on pronuciation from his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
If Castor and Pollux are on the Conservative side of the House, I suspect that Sagittarius has been trying to fire a few barbs into this debate from the Opposition Benches. There is, however, a real divide in this debate, which is exemplified by some of the hon. Members who have spoken—the divide between those hon. Members who have been to Namibia and those who wish to go.
I must declare that I have been to Namibia, in the run-up to the free and fair elections which we are celebrating. I was not in the same group as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), as I went a little before that. So, I celebrate this occasion with a memory full of pictures of that beautiful country, from the Zambezi to Windhoek and the bush in Ovamboland and elsewhere. The country has tremendous charm and potential for tourism, among other things, once it has settled down.
We can also celebrate the way in which Namibia reached independence. It is an enormous credit to the Namibian people and to the many people who went to help them that 40,000 people were brought back into the country—although not the 80,000 expected, according to the United Nations statistics—were resettled in the country and registered for an election. Anyone who has travelled around the bush areas of the Ovamboland and Kavanga will realise that it is incredible that registration for a free and fair democratic election could conceivably have operated there, but it did. I believe that slightly more people registered than had been estimated as the population of the country at the time, but that demonstrates the success of bringing people back into the country, and also the success in the running of the election.
Tribute must be paid to the people of Namibia and also to two individuals, one of whom has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—Maarti Ahtisaari, whose role is greatly to be admired. He must also be admired for fending off some of the pressures behind him from the United Nations, and showing his independence as the special representative. Tribute must also be paid to Mr. Jan Pienaar, the South African administrator general, who fended off some of the pressure from behind him from South Africa. Between them they brought this process to a happy conclusion.
Now Namibia is a new independent country with enormous opportunities which have been listed. The opportunities for the fishing industry have been mentioned. I agree with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), but the British Government acknowledge that Walvis Bay is part of Namibia. We have accepted that. It is in the constitution and has been accepted by South Africa. The question is how we bring those two independent nations together to try to resolve any outstanding differences. That question is based On the fact—a constitutional fact—that the territory concerned is deemed by the international community, and certainly by this country, to be part of independent Namibia.
Fish, minerals and other natural resources are assets and there is considerable optimism. The white population
240
—civil servants, for instance—stayed when the new Government came in; so did business men and there are enormous opportunities for industrial investment.
The election has overcome the challenges that resulted from the domination of the Ovambo people, which amounts to 40 per cent. of the population—comparable to the domination of the Serbs in Yugoslavia. It was, perhaps, helpful that SWAPO did not achieve the two-thirds majority that could have given it control of the constitution; the resulting brake has been used sensibly, achieving a compromise that has led not only to the initial stages of constitutional rearrangement but to subsequent compromises, such as the acceptance of the executive president and—I say this in hushed tones—the introduction of proportional representation. Perhaps most important was the agreement that there should be no detention without trial. All that gives us confidence in the future of the country.
There is, however, a debit side. I hope that, through the good offices of my right hon. Friend the Minister and, indeed, all hon. Members, the European Community will not forget southern Africa while it gives support to eastern Europe, and will ensure that countries such as Namibia receive their fair share of development aid. Debt is a great problem, as is drought.
We return again and again, however, to the question of education. As the hon. Member for Brent, South pointed out, one of the greatest gifts that this country can give Namibia is the English language. It was tragic, in a sense, to see the newly returned politicians of Namibia trying to make themselves understood—politically and in every other way—in Afrikaans, which was the only language common to their audience. I hope that English will be the symbol of the country's new independence.
The Bill is simple, but it symbolises an enormous achievement on the part of this country. In welcoming it, we are highlighting both the possibilities revealed for the United Nations and perhaps, in a future debate, we shall consider how that could relate to other countries, such as Cambodia—and the example that Namibia is setting its neighbour, South Africa, and many other countries in independent Africa.
8.42 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: As others have said, this is a happy occasion: almost a year has passed since Namibian independence. It was certainly one of the happiest days of my life when I was invited, as chairman of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, to join in the celebrations of the constituency assembly that was making the arrangements for independence day.
Although this is not the time to indulge in bad memories of the past, we must remember the many years of sacrifice on the part of the Namibian people in their fight for independence. That started much earlier than the elections. We must record the fact that the United Nations was somewhat dilatory; but, because this is a happy occasion, we must set all that aside for the moment.
Much has changed. One of the most heartening aspects, which will greatly benefit the future of South Africa, is the spirit of reconciliation that has been abroad. Namibian people of all races have said that what happened in the past is past. When a country achieves independence, astonishing things happen: perhaps one of the most astonishing was my being chided in the House by the

241
Foreign Secretary, and reminded that I should be as moderate as Sam Njomo. That was really something, in view of what had been said about him over the years! It certainly startled me.
Mrs. Chalker: Did the hon. Gentleman accept that advice?
Mr. Hughes: Not quite. I expect to be told at any moment that I should be as moderate as Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo; that would complete the trio. Anyway, a great deal has happened, and I feel that we should recognise how much was done, remembering those who died, those who lived and the great prospects for Namibia.
We must also reflect that the future depends considerably on us and our good will. It is interesting to note the different perceptions of Africa, and the way in which our own perceptions of that country become lost in time. From about 4 pm on independence day, the rain was teeming down in torrents; most of us Europeans apologised to the Namibians for the fact that it should rain on independence day, but they replied, "It is great: it is a good omen. You have brought us good luck—we are desperate for rain." That, I think, illustrates the difference between us. No matter how well we think that we understand Africa, unless we have lived there for a long period—as I did—we may forget that rain is welcomed.
Namibia—all of it—is a rich country, with great potential. The question is whether that potential can be realised. I had an odd experience. A number of South African and Namibian exiles—I suppose that I could be described as a part-exile—travelled to Namibia. The only way in which we could travel was with South African Airways. We all shuffled reluctantly on to the Frankfurt-Namibia plane, and felt extremely guilty as we sat in a nice hotel gorging ourselves on the South African food and wine that we had spent so many years boycotting and urging others to boycott. It was an odd mixture of pleasure and remorse.
There is a point to this anecdote. Windhoek is a marvellous old German city, beautifully laid out, with wide avenues and streets and lovely houses. One could almost imagine oneself in Utopia. To set ourselves to rights, and to help ourselves to remember the difficulties that the future would entail, we travelled about a mile and a half to the African township of Katatura. Visitors to Katatura see the desperate poverty in which Africans live. I know that this applies to hundreds, if not thousands, of places in southern Africa—and, indeed, South Africa itself—but if an alien from outer space were to ask, "What is this apartheid?", it would know the real and desperate meaning of the word if someone took it from Windhoek to Katatura.
I have spent 35 years campaigning on South Africa—not only for theoretical reasons, although the theory of democracy is important. The campaign has as much to do with people's lives as it has to do with theoretical democracy. We have a tremendous duty to ensure that the spirit of reconciliation that has been abroad before and since independence day, as well as on that day, is not dissipated because we have not done enough to try to resolve the problems.
The two main outstanding issues have already been mentioned, but they need to be reaffirmed. Those issues are
242
Walvis bay—which, for geographical and historical reasons, and because of the United Nations resolutions, is an integral part of Namibia and should be recognised as such by the South African Government—and the enormous debt that has built up in Namibia. President de Klerk, in his valedictory speech—surprisingly well received at the hand-over ceremony on independence day, although a gasp went around the stadium when he spoke of "us Africans"; that set him back a bit—pointed out that South Africa had left Namibia a marvellous infrastructure.
There are many good roads in the country, but they were not built for the good of the Namibians. They were built for the same reasons for which the Romans built the roads here and in Scotland—for the easy mobility of the army. It seems inconceivable that Namibia should be asked to bear the cost of the war machine that kept it down for so long. So I think that the South Africans must do something about the debt.
I had a talk some two months ago with a member of the United States Department of State. We were discussing what President de Klerk might say at the opening of the South African Parliament. He was quite enthusiastic. He believed that President de Klerk would say in his opening speech to Parliament that he was ceding—if that is the right word—Walvis bay and that, if he would not write off the whole debt, he would write off part of it. Many other things were missing from that speech. I do not want to go into that, except to say that nothing was mentioned, so far as I am aware, about these two subjects. It is not good enough, in my view, for hon. Members to say that the European Community should help to pay the debt. I think that the South Africans should pay the debt and we must continue to press them along those lines.
Namibia, during the elections and since it achieved independence, has put the scars behind it. Some are unwilling to put the scars behind them. I raised with SWAPO the issue of detainees, or however one describes them, during the period before independence. They admitted that there were things done on the SWAPO side which they would rather had not been done. There were things that the South Africans did which some South Africans, I believe, would rather had not been done. Some people are unwilling to put the past behind them, but I believe that there is a good chance of all that being set behind them.
The Namibians offer an opportunity to those whites in South Africa who are afraid for the future and afraid that the pace of development in South Africa is too fast. My own view—and I hope that at a later stage we shall have a chance to debate this thoroughly—is that the pace of events in South Africa is still too slow. The people in the townships and elsewhere are getting fractious and hesitant about the pace of developemnt. Therefore, we must make sure that development continues in South Africa. We must tell President de Klerk quite clearly that he should not be mesmerised by events in the Gulf and think that those who are desperately concerned about the Gulf will forget South Africa, the major wrongs that still have to be righted and the way in which democracy must come to South Africa.
I wish this Bill, as I think we all do, a very fair wind. We wish the Namibian people every possible success, every one of them, irrespective of race, creed or colour. We believe that their example in the last 12 months should put South Africa to shame and make South Africans realise that there is a future of great benefit post apartheid for all

243
the people of South Africa. I hope that it will not be too long before we have a Bill before us that welcomes South Africa back into the Commonwealth where it arid its people really belong.
8.52 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: To judge from the number of people who have either overtly or covertly suggested that they might like a trip to Namibia, I imagine that the Government will be getting on as quickly as possible with drawing up their tourist brochure. But I do not think that they will be asking the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) to write it for them, because the picture that she painted of Namibia is not one that I recognise. I may be one of the few people in the Chamber tonight who has paid her fare to go to Namibia. I have visited the Etosha game park, which is one of the wonders of the world, and many other natural history areas of the country. I have also been on a general political tour of the country. To me it is potentially one of the best capitalist development countries in the whole of Africa, and I have visited practically every country in Africa.
For the past 20 years I have run a business dealing with teaching equipment, through which I have had the opportunity and good fortune to talk to the departments of education in almost every country, including Namibia. I know from personal experience that Namibia, manifested by the spirit of the people who live there, has a terrific future as a capitalist country. It has one of the best, finest and most successful uranium mining features, the Rossing mines; there are diamond mining areas; and there are excellent resorts along the coast. It also has, potentially, one of the best fishing industries in the world. The only problem at the moment is that the Namibians do not have a fleet with which to police it and there is a great deal of poaching. But once they get the resources to control that, it will bring them enormous wealth. So that country, perhaps more than any other African country, has the prospect of a bright free-enterprise future.
I am as delighted as are all hon. Members with the Bill and with the multinational nature of the Namibian Parliament. I hope that it remains a multi-party country and does not, like Zambia and some other countries of Africa, go down the road to single-party government, thus frightening away all the capitalist enterprises which are the backbone of its support.
All developing countries have problems of poverty. People in country districts move towards towns such as Windhoek where they set up suburbs which are much less pleasing than people would like them to be. The only way in which we can improve life for those people is by helping in the development of capitalist industries that will increase the wealth of the country and make those people prosperous.
I would like to leave those who bother to read Hansard tomorrow with my view that Namibia is a terrific country, with delightful people, wonderful natural history and terrific industrial and commercial potential. I know that many African countries have failed to achieve this, but if it keeps its political act open, with an all-party state, I think Namibia has a wonderful future.
8.56 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: It would be somewhat churlish of me not to join in the general welcome for this Bill and the implications of a new, independent and free Namibia. However, I believe that it needs to be said that, in the spirit of reconciliation shown on both sides of the House, certain things said earlier, particularly by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), were, to say the least, unfortunate and somewhat misinformed and misguided.
I say to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), whose views on South Africa are almost as well known as mine, that had it not been for the cajoling, persuading and constant co-operation with the present South African Government that I and my hon. Friends—in particular, the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner)—have pursued over the years, we might not have been in this position this evening. Carping though he is about this relationship and the discussions over many years of the many and varied problems of South Africa, I suggest to him that it is the influence of British friends, and British friends in the House among others, that has helped South Africa along the road to realisation that the United Nations resolution has to be implemented. Because of people like us, they took that decision. By his constant carping and criticism the hon. Gentleman has, I think, delayed the process—I see the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) shaking his head—in very much the same way as one of his former colleagues, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), did when he was Foreign Secretary, and Mr. Andrew Young, the American ambassador to the United Nations, did in the 1970s. It looked as though a settlement could be reached, but that was scuppered, of course, by Mr. Young and the then Foreign Secretary.
It must be noted that whatever the future of Namibia is to be—obviously, we all wish it well—it is somewhat foolish and naive, particularly as outlined by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, totally to ignore the obviously old dependence that it had on South Africa and the new dependence that it is bound to have on it as a major trading capital nation of that continent. If misfortune ever struck this country and there was a Labour Government, I hope that the hon. Lady, in her attitude towards that country and to the whole of southern Africa, would perhaps be a little more magnanimous in accepting the reality that South Africa is there and is a major trading partner. The hon. Lady mentioned several other trading nations in and around southern Africa. Many of them are totally dependent on South Africa. Whether that is right or wrong is not the argument. That is a fact and a reality which it is foolish to ignore. Namibia will certainly be economically dependent in many ways on South Africa and the South African market.
It is a pity that on a day when our Prime Minister recognised, after President de Klerk's remarkable speech last Friday, that sanctions should be lifted fast, there is still talk in this place, particularly among Opposition Members —although some of them are beginning to change their ways—that we should continue to impose trading sanctions. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, for whose views on southern African affairs I have the greatest respect, was right to say that South Africa should take

245
some responsibility for Namibia's debt. A buoyant South African economy would be able to help to pay that debt if sanctions were withdrawn.
South Africa's attitude to the Walvis bay issue is not cast in concrete. It is, as it was in the past, an enormous asset to South Africa. It will also be an enormous asset to the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to the expertise that will be needed to improve Namibia's fishing industry. Expertise will also be required if Namibia is to improve its technology. South African co-operation will almost certainly be needed. The future of Walvis bay must be settled by means of partnership and co-operation between the two countries rather than by the complete handing over of that facility.
So far, so good. Multi-party democracy is working. We applaud that. The majority of Namibians have put behind them the old bitterness which, regrettably, was evident in the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. All that has gone. There is a new spirit in the country. I have not accepted a free trip to Namibia, although I have accepted several to South Africa. I have been invited several times to Namibia, particularly for sporting events. It is a country that I should certainly like to visit one day. I do not speak with any particular bias. If the tone set by certain Opposition Members—with some honourable exceptions —were to continue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay warned, the likelihood is that democracy in Namibia will not remain as it is but will, sadly, go the way of democracy in so many other countries in southern Africa.
Of course, we welcome the Bill. I wish Namibia a fair wind in the exciting times that lie ahead. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, I hope that one day we shall debate a similar motion on South Africa.
9.2 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: History will now be able to record the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Carlisle), together with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), Trevor Huddleston and many others as having invited South Africa to do what eventually it got around to doing. How good it would have been if South Africa had listened to my hon. Friend at the time that the United Nations said that South Africa should obey the terms of the mandate and leave Namibia.
The advantage of one person, one vote and a flexible economic process can deliver great benefits. First, it delivers people from war. In far too many countries people are still denied the vote, or their vote is not carried into effect.
I should like Burma to beat South Africa back into the Commonwealth. Burma gained its independence but did not join the Commonwealth. Burma had an election but the results have not been implemented.
We ought to learn the lessons of Zimbabwe and Namibia. I am sure that they will be learnt in South Africa —I hope as soon as possible. They are that to give a person the vote should lead to that vote being used, to competing candidates and, preferably, to competing parties. The Commonwealth countries have more competing candidates than most other countries in the world, though not always with competing parties. Then there would be less starvation, fewer deaths and more people who were willing
246
to accept that resignation or retirement is honourable, having led their country, rather than waiting until, having formed a dynasty, they are forced out at the point of a gun.
Mr. George Foulkes: Tell that to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
Mr. Bottomley: I was just about to come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). At the beginning of her term as Prime Minister we saw the advent of freedom for Zimbabwe. That was a great triumph for her and for Lord Carrington, which I do not think anyone else could have pulled off. A great deal of help was forthcoming from within the Commonwealth also.
At the Lusaka Heads of Government meeting the Prime Minister of Australia, the Prime Minister of Jamaica and, I suspect, the Queen—of course, I am not supposed to bring the monarch into a political discussion—combined to help bring about the Lancaster house conference. That conference and the persistence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley produced a result far better than anyone had expected. Towards the end of my right hon. Friend's term as Prime Minister, Namibia became independent. When the 30-year rule has been satisfied, we may find out that some communication between my right hon. Friend and the South Africans had as much influence as did the communications from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).
If I were to offer a suggestion for the "Thatcher foundation", it would be that it should be dedicated to trying to spread democracy round the world. The reputation of the Commonwealth and of other bodies for encouraging people to get away from subjugation to minority groups could be a great advantage, as we have seen in places like Iraq, where the richness of the ruler contrasts with the poverty of the ruled.
I suspect that one could use that advantage in terms of flexible economic systems and flexible fiscal systems. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley may go down in history as one of the people who helped to carry through a change such as we have seen in fits and starts since the war.
Let me explain why I am speaking for the second time in two days. When I was first elected to this House—in 1975—the leader of the Conservative party asked me what subjects I was interested in. I replied that two of the things I was interested in were family policy and southern Africa. It struck me that the Conservatives ought to be making sure that people like Ian Smith and others in southern Africa did not think that the Tories supported white-minority rule. It would be well that people should realise that that sort of approach was morally wrong and eventually a military loser.
Many Tory Members should pay tribute to people like the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North who has consistently pointed out how wrong apartheid is. I do not go along with all that the anti-apartheid people have stood for. However, that is a detail. I am thinking of the symbolism of opposition to apartheid. I am thinking of the ability to have been to Friends house on the Euston road and heard very significant speeches by ANC and SWAPO leaders and by people from various Zimbabwe opposition parties, often in exile.

247
The audiences at such meetings were British, but not those who throw sticks at anti-poll-tax demonstrations in Trafalgar square. I am referring to people who have shown a consistent interest in human rights and who believe that what we think is good for us is good for people in other countries also. Namibia's joining the Commonwealth is an illustration of the fact that that approach is right.
In the past I have been a patron of the defence aid fund for most of my years in this House. Although I did not do as much as I ought to have done, I can say that help for people who have been imprisoned, people who have no one else to speak for them, is important. We should riot be dealing just with the big questions like Walvis bay; we ought to be asking, "What can we do to provide the help that is needed by ordinary individuals suffering oppression?"
I hope that this country will continue to provide aid. This may be a matter for another debate, but I have to say that we must continue to try to increase this country's contribution towards 0·7 per cent. Perhaps we could do that and, at the same time, create greater trust in South Africa by helping to relieve Namibia of its debts.
I hope that that will result in a rise in the public expenditure line for the Foreign Office, including the ODA. I hope that by the time those debts are written off we shall have moved towards the 0·7 per cent. Sadly, in recent years the trend has been in the opposite direction.
There are several ways in which we could deal with the voluntary agencies. I hope on another occasion to be able to deal with the work of VSO. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), who is a returned volunteer, is not present, so I shall leave that subject for the time being. We can favour providing assistance for, and giving prominence to, such projects as the Ranfurley library scheme, which was doing work in Namibia when I was there in the early 1980s. We might also recognise that the movement towards English in Namibia began not on independence but when the people of Namibia revolted against the Afrikaans language in the early 1980s. Whatever one may want to say about the South African defence forces, they tried to help with the teaching of English.
As we move into what I suspect might be called a recession, we might find ways of getting people with technical and English skills into Namibia on a short-term basis, because their knowledge and skills will be of much value in the next few months and years.
I want to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North by not going back into the atrocities and tragedies which were Namibia's lot and which spread into Angola. I should like to mention the role of the Namibian Council of Churches and Namibian National Front during the years of agony in Namibia. The people stuck in the middle, who were signed up not with SWAPO—that was not such a bad body as many led us to believe—but with the Namibian Council of Churches and the Namibian National Front, were squeezed from both sides. I pay tribute to the dignity and honourable way in which many of them behaved for such a long time.
The Lutheran churches, and most of the other churches, came out of the years towards independence with honour. Others were in contact with them, and I should not want the debate to pass without again paying tribute to the Catholic Institute for International Relations. Its briefings are a model of the information that such organisations can offer. How nice it was that the
248
European Community sent as its representative to Windhoek someone who had worked in the Catholic Institute for International Relations. I am pleased that the European Commission has decided to move that person on to South Africa.
Independence for Namibia shows the way forward for South Africa. The strong will learn from the weak, which will be important for southern Africa and, I hope, will spread through the middle of Africa and central Africa as other countries learn that food must be produced, that one must get the best from people and that that cannot be achieved with out-of-date ideologies. Being practical is one of the lessons that SWAPO can offer.
In the early 1980s, at about the time of independence for Zimbabwe, we had in Lusaka one of the strongest high commissions, in terms of dedication and competence of its staff, which was led by Sir John Johnson. When I visited the country, he made it possible for me to go to parties with the Pan-African Congress, the ANC and at the United Nations institute for Namibia, which provided some link and showed that Members of Parliament are interested in the rights and wrongs; the facts rather than the fantasies.
More hon. Members should visit countries that are holding elections, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), who attended the Namibian elections, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and others. If we can get into the habit of sharing each other's election processes, we shall become more knowledgeable and more of us will be able to appeal through a network of politicians around the world so that few people's agonies go unrecognised by others.
We rely on contacts and on facts. That is where the work of the CIIR and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office matters. It is often necessary to have dirty hands. It is not always easy for a Minister, especially a Conservative Minister, to tell the House what the truth is. One or two Ministers for Sport have become ex-Ministers for Sport because of the South African sports issue. Not all of us can feel pride about our lack of support for Ministers at times when it might have been more useful.
The dramatic change in South Africa must be recognised. It is not happening fully yet. We have not heard explicitly about one person, one vote, or when that will come, but if we do not provide more of a reward I suspect that a provincial caucus in the Transvaal National party may seriously delay free and full elections in South Africa. That is why I argue for the dropping of unimportant sanctions. Sporting sanctions should be reconsidered. I hope that the governing bodies internationally will do that.
We can go on to see prosperity in Namibia. It will not be perfect but it will be much better than anything else that could have happened. I hope that what is happening there will spread into South Africa itself.
The point in the Bill that matters most to the House is the admission of Namibia to the Commonwealth. People are willing to work together and to learn together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), governor of the Commonwealth Institute said, they are learning from each other. We have a great deal to offer and we have a great deal to learn as well.
I make a penultimate plea. There is a country beyond Burma which has not yet joined the Commonwealth. I

249
look on the United States as becoming the 53rd country because it has not bothered to join the rest who have been affected by our influence.
My more local plea is that all schools in Eltham, my constituency, and every constituency should use the Commonwealth Institute. It is an unusual place which can provide much meaning to the history of the last 50 years or, indeed, the last 250 years. It will give children an idea that they are citizens of the world, something which we tend to forget in our education system.
9.15 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: The number and the range of contributions to the debate, including the remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), indicate clearly to me that our decision to press for the debate to be held on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee was justified. I have learnt a great deal. For example, I have learnt from the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that the real division is between those who have been to Namibia and those who want to go, and from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) of a division even within those who have gone, between those whose trips were paid for by various institutions and those who have gone with business expenses. Certainly she gave a very good Tory plug for the new Namibia.
I hope that the Overseas Development Administration will consider tourism as a major area for foreign exchange for the new country, with the Etosha pan, with the savage scenery, with the marvellous restaurants in Windhoek itself, with the Skeleton coast and with the marvellous range of landscapes—
Mrs. Gorman: And the wild animals.
Mr. Anderson—and, indeed, the wild animals, which are all part of Namibia.
This has been an excellent debate, technical in form because it is a relatively small, technical Bill, but it has been an opportunity for hon. Members of all parties to give a collective blessing to the new Namibia and an opportunity too to review the role which we in Britain, and Britain as part of the Commonwealth, can play in responding to the needs of the new Namibia.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said so well, reconciliation is part of the recent history of Namibia. Those of us who have been brought up in the European tradition stand amazed at the readiness of people in southern Africa to take part in reconciliation. Experience in Zimbabwe shows that people who were imprisoned for long years during the independence struggle were willing to work together; one sees equal willingness in Namibia. I recall, as did the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), the Namibian delegation at the CPA conference last October, led by the Deputy Speaker, Dr. Kameeta. The fact that it was a mixed party delegation boded well for knitting together and national reconciliation within Namibia.
There has been a proper welcome to Namibia as the 50th member of the Commonwealth, and, happily, the tenth member of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference. The hon. Members for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and for Hereford referred
250
to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The association has much to offer, such as seminars and visits—not, I hope, merely from a British perspective. The neighbouring African countries, especially Botswana, which is a model of democracy, can play a significant role as models and friends to the newly emerging, newly independent Namibia.
Today, I discussed with the Commonwealth secretariat its own enhanced programme of technical assistance for Namibia. We are pleased that the British Government and the Overseas Development Administration have pledged their full proportion of support to that enhanced programme of technical co-operation under the auspices of the Commonwealth secretariat.
My first visit to Namibia in 1985 was sponsored by the Council of Churches of Namibia. The churches there saw their role as similar to that of the churches in Poland at the time—as a beacon of light and as a progressive opposition to a totalitarian, authoritarian oppressor. They were able to keep alight the hopes of the people of Namibia at a very difficult time.
With the passing of Security Council resolution 435 in 1978, hopes were raised, yet our overriding impression in 1985 was of a sense of gloom and despair, and of frustration at the lack of progress since the 1978 resolution, at the collusion between the United States and South Africa in terms of linkage and at the fear of the churches and others that the independence promised in 1978 was receding into an ever-distant future.
Today, I learned of the sterling role played by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) in that independence process. I confess that I was unaware of the persuation that he brought to bear on the powers that be in South Africa. When we come to rewrite the history books on the motive behind the independence of Namibia, we shall not think of the battle of Cuito Canavale, of the effect of sanctions or of the internal economic pressures on South Africa. They can be assigned to a footnote in the history books. We shall think of the pressures applied by the progressive hon. Member for Luton, North when we recall our history.
I revisited Namibia in August 1989 and saw the return of the exiles. That visit was made under the auspices of the West European Parliamentarians for Action against Apartheid which has had a particularly close interest in Namibia. I had the honour to be its senior vice-president. We organised a conference in November of last year on aid and co-operation with the new Namibia, and we look forward to being in Windhoek in April.
In November 1989, I also had the privilege to be part of a three-person Inter-Parliamentary Union team monitoring the election. We were delighted to see the eagerness of the people of Namibia for democracy, as were other hon. Members who have been there. I recall being woken at dawn with a Pakistani senator, Javed Jabbar, and seeing a trail of people already queueing, eager to vote in that election, which we did not hesitate to confirm as free and fair. It has indeed been a success story.
From the time of the 1978 resolution, and indeed before, Namibia has been the child of the international community. Our task now is to ensure that the international community—including Britain, the Commonwealth and the European Community—respond properly so that democracy can flourish.
There were high expectations at the time of independence, but for many Namibians, such as

251
subsistence farmers, democracy and expectations will mean a new waterhole and the provision of drinking water and aid—not so much the grand gestures, but the micro-projects that bring proper relief to villages in those areas. I hope that the ODA will look properly at those matters and will try to harness the enormous skills in this country, in particular the skills of some professional people who have taken early retirement, such as doctors, engineers and others, and look again at educational institutions in the United Kingdom that can twin with appropriate schools in Namibia, as education has properly been stressed as the great underpinning of the needs of the new Namibia.
In some ways, independence came at a difficult time, because Africa has been somewhat marginalised in aid terms. The counter attractions of east and central Europe, the retreat from lending by the private banks, and now the Gulf war are bound to affect the economy of the country, which has no indigenous oil resources. However, there is much in favour of Namibia. I remind the House of the conclusions of the International Monetary Fund survey in January this year, which was extremely optimistic about the future, and which stated:
"Overall, Namibia is well placed for economic development, in part because of the extensive infrastructure that it has inherited. The nation also has a strong resource base that offers substantial economic potential. The lifting of economic sanctions after Namibia became independent also provides important new growth opportunities. At the same time, prudent fiscal policies and policies conducive to boosting investment will be critical to the nation's aim of reactivating its economy."
I hope that that will be reflected in the current three-day seminar on private sector investment in that country.
I have mentioned national reconciliation. Obviously, there is also the need for external assistance if democracy is to flourish and if the grand human rights provisions in the constitution, which go far beyond that which is basic in international conventions, are able properly to be implemented. The economy of Namibia is still very skewed. There is an enormous disproportion in income, which must make democracy in the western Sense extremely difficult. For example, the whites, who comprise 5 per cent. of the population, have a personal gross domestic product of about $16,500. Non-whites in economic urban sectors have a personal GDP of about $750 per annum, and most subsistence farmers have an annual gross domestic product of about $85. That gives some idea of the problems and disparities in trying to provide adequate democracy in a developing country in which there are such gross disproportions in income.
I hope that we shall do what we can to bring together what is now in one country the first and third worlds, side by side. The problems, as related to me by Namibian friends, include the fact that the country is still largely relying on the old pre-independence administrative personnel who have constitutional guarantees to remain. The new Namibia needs enormous training and help in administration. Is the Minister for Overseas Development satisfied with the adequacy of aid from external donors? Is the co-ordination adequate?
On education, 60 per cent. of the people are illiterate. The problem of English language teaching has already been mentioned, but it has repercussions in two sectors. First, staff in the current teacher force are mostly under-trained for its needs. There must be continuous in-service training for the teacher force. Secondly, there is
252
the problem that the young people coming into education do not speak English. That poses the problem of deciding when they should begin to learn the English language. I trust that, in view of our special contribution, we shall look into that. The British Council published a report in April 1989 on the problems of Namibian education. I fear that the British Government have been somewhat slow off the starting block, but I look forward to a major contribution in that sector, particularly in subjects such as maths, which is affected by the legacy of apartheid when black pupils were assigned a low status.
It was not only expenditure on the road infrastructure which led to Namibia's indebtedness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North suggested. The cause was also the apartheid education structure, which had 11 administrations and the duplication of administration and teaching effort which derived from it.
Fishing has been mentioned this evening. I understand that the Government are awaiting a response from the Namibian authorities. Fishing is basic to the economy. It is necessary to patrol the 200-mile zone and enforce the fishing regulations. I am told that Spanish vessels, for example, are particularly notorious for entering the waters, and Namibia needs assistance in that matter.
Security Council resolution 432, which our Government supported, calls for the early reintegration of Walvis bay into Namibia. Yet we are now a year on from independence and there has been no progress. The Government talk of a softly, softly approach. It would be helpful to know what the pressures are, and how intense and at what level they are being exerted.
What are the prospects? The Namibian of 27 January this year said that the Afrikaans press in South Africa had suggested that there should be some Hong Kong-type solution or that there should be some joint administration between the Namibians and the South Africans. It is claimed that in a weekly Afrikaans newspaper Pik Botha said that there was no possibility of reintegration of Walvis bay into Namibia in the near future. That may or may not be an exact quotation, but it would be helpful to know from the Government whether they believe that there is a real threat from the South African authorities.
To turn to the broader political considerations, clearly the whole sub-region of southern Africa has a stake in Namibia's success. Will it be a negative or a positive model? I am sure that if independence had gone wrong, if the whites had been driven out of Namibia, and if there had been an economic disaster, Namibia would have been headline news in Britain and elsewhere. Part of the success story is that Namibia has not been in the headlines. Namibians have got on with the job of building their new country. It has been a model of prudent nation-building for South Africa and anyone else who cares to examine it.
Our Namibian friends and Commonwealth colleagues should be assured that there is enormous cross-party good will in Britain. We should all be ready to respond sensitively and in appropriate measure to the developing needs of our newly independent country.
9.35 pm
Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I will respond to what hon. Members will agree has been an excellent debate. We may not have agreed 100 per cent. with everything that has been said from either side, but there has been a greater degree of unanimity, for all the

253
right reasons, in this debate than I can recall seeing for a long time. That has been a most welcome aspect of our proceedings because not only has it been an ambition of mine to see the end of apartheid while I was serving in the Foreign Office, but I know that it has been the lifetime work of many hon. Members.
For many years, hon. Members on both sides have believed that apartheid was wrong and should go as soon as possible. I include among those my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who said so, sometimes defiantly, and who worked to ensure that changes would come about. I refer, of course, to the sort of changes that were heralded in an outstanding speech at the opening of the South African Parliament last Friday by President de Klerk.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who has worked assiduously for Namibian independence, said that the United Nations role had been much more than monitoring, and he was right. The United Kingdom played a major role in the UNTAG performance, which was perhaps towards the end of the process. At first, the western contact group drew up the settlement plan, and the United Nations then came into its role. I have a personal friend who worked on that group back in the 1970s. I am sure that she and many like her longed for that day in March last year, which at long last came.
Mr. George Foulkes: There has been an omission from the debate. Credit should be paid to the late Bernot Carlsson for the part he played in the process. I hope that the right hon. Lady will agree about that and will put the record right.
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman gives me new information, and I am sure he is right. Had he been trying to catch me out, he would have sat on the Opposition Front Bench to make that comment. I gladly join him in paying that tribute, although there are many, too numerous to mention, to whom tribute should be paid.
The major contribution that we were able to make to UNTAG was timely, and I refer not only to our £17 million financial contribution. It was, as a Namibian told me last week, what people on the ground did in the signals unit that we sent to Namibia. There were 150 people—149 men and one woman—55 election monitors and a team of fingerprint experts. They were praised not only for the work that they went to Namibia to do but for the extra that they gave in the whole process leading up to independence.
Independence has succeeded and tonight we are discussing the Bill which extends the Commonwealth provisions to Namibia. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), my hon. Friends and Opposition Members referred in particular to the two outstanding problems that must be tackled—Walvis bay and debt repayment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) said, rightly, that discussions are proceeding between the Governments of Namibia and of the Republic of South Africa about Walvis bay. Those discussions have been on a sensible, low-key, bilateral basis and we have not sought to play a role in them. We have asked what I hope have been helpful questions and made points, but we have not played a direct role. Such a role is not ours to play.
254
Resolution 432 talked about early reintegration, and that we fully support. But in wishing to see that occur, we must proceed by way of encouragement. I believe that prospects exist for a solution. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) questioned me about that. I shall check on the quotation that he said was attributed to the South African Foreign Minister when I am in South Africa next week visiting projects there. We are keen to see the problem resolved, as I believe are many members of the South African Government. There must be sensible discussions about all the elements of Walvis bay and, until that problem is resolved, I well understand that people will feel that Namibia's complete independence has not been achieved.
It is interesting to note that the Namibian Government have said that they accept the inherited debt as a sovereign obligation. Throughout the time that I have been dealing with the matter, I have been impressed by the number of times members of the Namibian Government and other Namibians have told me how determined that country is to stand on its own feet—that includes dealing with its debt. It has provided, in its 1990 budget, for servicing the debt and for repayment of it, but I am sure that the Namibians, who are fully prepared to negotiate with South Africa over the debt that they inherited from the former South African Administration, will find ready listeners in the international community and in South Africa in dealing with this. We must work on tackling that problem.
None of Namibia's requirements, with a new Government facing a difficult challenge, will succeed unless Namibia achieves growth. Namibia wants to create growth for itself and it wants to achieve that through investment. That is why I was particularly pleased last Friday to sign, on behalf of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and with the chairman of the National Planning Commission, Dr. "Z", the agreement for the CDC to invest in Namibia. We signed that code because we wanted to give the CDC the freedom to invest in the sort of projects that everyone knows will bring employment and prosperity to the people of Namibia. It was the first of its kind for Namibia. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East remarked, an investment seminar began yesterday that will attract many people to invest in a country that wants to thrive by its own efforts—investment is necessary for that.
I was asked during the debate about other ways in which Namibia could get itself on its feet. Tourism is one. I was most impressed by the way in which Namibia, hosting SADCC for the first time since it became a member, put up displays in the hall, not only of the places that one might expect to see and of wild animals in the bush, but of the quite fantastic Skeleton coast. Without wishing to sound like a travel agent for Namibia, I can say that there will be plenty for all to enjoy in a country that welcomes visitors and makes them happy while they are there. Tourism is, therefore, an industry from which perhaps the CDC and certainly others will find a ready return on investment.
Education is a fundamental aspect of our training programme, not only in English, but in other subjects, too. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred to two specialists in the Ministry of Education. I assure her that that is not all that we are doing. The Namibian Government asked us to focus on English language education and wanted the advisers in the Ministry of Education. This year we are also granting 21 awards for

255
English teachers and we shall be doing more next year. We are helping with education planning, teacher training, the reform of the examination system, and the higher education commission. We have been training students at Moray house and Selly Oak college in this country. We are now considering what to do with the resources to fit in with the Namibian Government's plans. One should never forget that they have inherited 11 different education systems which have to be bound together to form just one. That is a major problem to tackle.
I have arranged that the ODA's chief education adviser will lead the sector mission to Namibia planned for April this year to programme the further educational assistance.
Finally, in this current financial year we are spending approaching £1 million on more than 140 training awards for Namibians studying in Britain. Therefore, a great deal is already being done in the education sector.
Mr. Anderson: The Minister may be aware that, in addition to that which is being done formally by the British Government, a number of private agencies are equally involved. Moray house has been mentioned and Sheena Johnston is currently in Namibia preparing a report on pre-school education. There is a great range of private and public effort in this area.
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my remarks about the private educational effort. I could fill the remaining 15 minutes of the debate talking about education in Namibia and some of the ways in which different groups are trying to meet the complicated educational needs of the increasing young population there.
I also pay tribute to the work of the British Council in Namibia which the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) mentioned and which I visited on Friday. It has a real role to play which is increasing fast. I am sure that its contribution will be second to none in helping Namibians to broaden their experience of the English language, through culture and music in particular, and in other ways which will add to their life. Many native languages are spoken in that country and the binding nature of the English language, through culture and music, is important.
There are many other ways in which we wish to help Namibia. We already have the police training programme and the public service reforms which I have mentioned. We are helping, through Christian Aid, some projects run by the repatriation, resettlement and reconstruction committee which helps the returnees to reintegrate into Namibian life.
At the end of last year we had a health identification mission in Namibia and we shall be getting involved in primary health care training, working with Oxfam and the CIIR. We are currently at the design stage.
There is no doubt that there are other areas in which we need to assist. We have already financed an initial study on fisheries management to which I referred briefly yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Burnley. We have offered to provide further assistance in fisheries, but we are awaiting a response from the Namibian Government. I asked them last week to let us know kow that consideration was proceeding.
256
We are considering particular opportunities to assist the agricultural sector. I hope to arrange a further visit by an agriculture expert to take that forward in the next couple of months.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley rather pooh-poohed the fact that we must send people to Namibia to find out what needs to be done, but to meet the requirements and wishes of the Namibian Government much consultation is needed. By the end of March we shall have spent £2 million during the first year of the programme. We have more to do, but we have tried to lay the foundation for each of the projects thoroughly by sending our advisers out, discussing with the Government of Namibia and now pushing projects forward through the national planning commission. That commission will need help from us, but much basic training is needed on agriculture methodology if the people, particularly those in the northern part of Ovamboland, are to realise their ambition—to get a secure living from the land.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East was right about the importance of irrigation and we are looking with the Namibians at their irrigation needs. I cannot yet tell the House whether that will result in projects, but we have told the Namibian Government that we are ready to help. In that way, we may do some good work in irrigation and agriculture for 1·6 million people.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley asked about a Community fisheries agreement with Namibia. We have lent our weight to such a proposal, but have only just received the Commission's first draft. Nevertheless, we shall give it urgent consideration. Namibia's fisheries programme is of great importance because it will provide a major source of income, as long as the fish are not stolen. Devising the fisheries protection area for the Namibian coast will be complicated, and the area will then need the policing that it has not enjoyed until now. The income that Namibia will derive from that sector will be enhanced once a fisheries agreement is reached with the European Community.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley suggested that £10 million of funding over three years is not enough. It is easy to make such a comment, but also inaccurate. Namibia is still assessing its own priorities. We are willing to spend money there, because we want to help, but there is no way that we will impose upon Namibia assistance that it does not want, or ideas and priorities of our own. Namibia must decide its own priorities and devise its own ideas. We will help, but we must not impose our own concepts on that country. That is why our programme of assistance must he given a proper basis and be properly organised.
Given the size and spread of Namibia's population, we must give careful thought to how best to spend money. It would not be sensible, in view of the scattered population, to build schools across the country—but it would be sensible to invest in educational broadcasting, which would cover areas that teachers cannot normally reach. That £10 million will be well spent.
The hon. Lady referred also to a reduction in European Community aid for the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, but she probably has not studied the figures in detail. In fact, it was at the SADCC that I met so many Namibians last week, both at the conference and in their own offices. A larger element of funds for regional projects has been kept in reserve by the Community for SADCC. The director-general of DGVIII was present at that conference and there were constructive

257
discussions with the national planning commission and with European Commission representatives about how Namibia wants to spend the resources available to it. There is also a special budget line, in addition to the funds available from the European development fund.
It is important to ensure the most efficient use of regional funds. There is no intention to downgrade the importance of SADCC in Community spending, and certainly not when that spending relates to the newest member of both SADCC and the Commonwealth.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred to the fourth Lomé convention. The order that allows the United Kingdom to ratify that measure was laid before the House last month and no doubt we will debate it soon. We cannot sign the convention before the House gives its approval. I would have been quite wrong to do otherwise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made a very interesting speech tonight, which had breadth, depth and vision. One aspect of his speech which struck me was what he said about the importance of developing democracy. Namibia gives us a new opportunity. Democracy is about people's lives, as is the development of Namibia.
While I was in Namibia last week I studied some of the Namibian Government's undertakings and I was interested to find out how they were working forward under the independence constitution. The Namibian Government have begun work on devising boundaries for regional and local government. They have appointed a commission to determine constituencies for future regional and national elections, and an Overseas Development Administration finance adviser has assisted the commission.
The regions will elect representatives to a second Chamber of the National Assembly during 1991 or 1992 and the elected representatives will then replace the 13
258
temporary regional commissioners, who have been appointed by the Government. This is a good development in the process of democracy and one which other countries, inside and outside the Commonwealth, that are looking for greater democracy would do well to copy.
During the debate I was asked about human rights, which are an essential part of the democracy which Namibia is seeking to achieve. That is why we have made it clear, during police training given in Namibia, that all police forces should operate on the basis of full respect for human rights and the rule of law. That is a basic objective of all our police training programmes throughout Africa and especially with the Namibian police.
We have had a good debate tonight, and it has also been interesting and thoughtful. Namibia is a most welcome new member of the Commonwealth. It is seeking to overcome some enormous problems, has to face serious financial problems, and has a large bureaucracy which, as it freely admits, is not efficient. We are seeking to help Namibia to face those problems and deal with them. That is why a permanent secretary from the former Department of Health and Social Security—now retired—has spent a considerable time helping to achieve the civil service reforms which Namibia needs if it is to have the sound independence that it is seeking.
From all that I have seen and heard about the newest member of the Commonwealth, I am confident that it is working its way towards a truly successful end to the long process of independence. We wish Namibia well and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight and allow it to proceed swiftly on to the statute book so that Namibia, our 50th member of the Commonwealth, is fully covered by all the provisions which our law should provide for it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Wood.]
Committee tomorrow.

European Standing Committee A
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That at the meeting of European Standing Committee A on Wednesday 6th February, the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the adjournment of the committee at One o'clock, shall not apply.—[Mr. Wood.]
9.58 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In this wonderful democratic system, we have two minutes in which to discuss a vital constitutional issue. Tomorrow, the Standing Committee dealing with European instruments will be given time to discuss a vital milk quota agreement which the Government say is damaging the country, and which they have said that they will fight all the way. Is it sensible or tolerable to consider the motion to extend the sitting, given that the issue was settled yesterday in Brussels? We, the members of the Committee, have for two days been studying an issue that has already been agreed.
Let me ask a second question. How can it make sense for us to agree to discuss a motion to congratulate the Government on opposing a proposal to which, yesterday, they agreed without discussion? Thirdly, will you, Mr. Speaker, look at the motion passed by the House of Commons on 24 October, which stated that if a Minister agrees to an issue without its being considered by the Standing Committee he must come to the House and explain why at the earliest opportunity?
Sadly, this is yet another sign—we have had two such signs already—of the Government's treating European Community legislation with contempt—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments by way of remuneration, allowances or otherwise to inspectors appointed by him under the Act, and

(2) any other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act.—[Mr. Wood.]

Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Wood.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would be saddened if money resolutions such as this went through on the nod, with no contribution from the Floor of the House. I shall be brief, however. This useful Bill—promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds); the constituency used to be called Smethwick—is minor but important. It provides local authorities with moneys to help finance the enforcement of existing legislation to prevent children under 16 from purchasing cigarettes, and to ensure that those who break up cigarette packets and sell the cigarettes singly to children of that age are prosecuted. This is a means of enforcing the law to stop children from embarking on the disastrous smoking habit that loses us so many lives each year.
The Bill is modest. It does not, for example, tackle the problem of sporting events being used to advertise smoking materials, as many are: tobacco companies trespass their way on to our television screens, although the advertising has received no direct finance and, indeed, smoking advertising has been banned on television.
I welcome the money resolution. As I said when we debated the Bill on the first Friday of the Session for private Members' Bills, local authorities need adequate financing to ensure that local government officers in, for example, Bradford—a local authority that is trying to provide services in the face of considerable difficulties, given its limited central Government grant—have the additional resources that the Bill will require. They are naturally keen to enforce such legislation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: And Bolsover.
Mr. Cryer: Bolsover, like many other areas, will require those additional facilities for the benefit of the community.
10.4 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: I understood that the money resolution would go through on the nod, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has said a few words, let me do so as well. I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who cannot be here, despite his obvious interest in the matter. As one of the Bill's sponsors, let me register my strong support for its objectives; it is a vital measure which could save the lives of many young people.
In 1986, I presented a similar Bill, the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Bill. Sadly, it did not go as far as we hoped to protect young people from this poisonous menace. I welcome the money resolution, which will, I hope, ensure that my hon. Friend's Bill will be more effective.
Question put and agreed to.

Miscarriage and Stillbirth
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
10.5 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise this very distressing subject in the House this evening. I am grateful to the Table Office for helping me with the wording of this motion. It says "women suffering miscarriages and stillbirths", and that is exactly what women do.
First, I would like to acknowledge the help that I have received in preparing for this debate from Christine Moulder, who has written a book on miscarriage, and also from the Miscarriage Association.
I want to kick off with one or two definitions. Doctors call all miscarriages "spontaneous abortions"—very different from induced abortions. "Miscarriage", in the present context, is the spontaneous loss of a foetus and stillbirth is the loss of a baby over 28 weeks.
I am very well aware that there are some unwanted pregnancies and that, with these women, a miscarriage can often come as a blessed relief. I realise that, but I do not wish to touch any further on that particular aspect tonight. So why raise this subject at all?
Miscarriage is astonishingly common. At least 30 per cent. of pregnant women experience the loss of a conceived baby before the seventh month of pregnancy. That is hundreds of thousands of babies. This is bad enough, but there is massive bitterness and anger among women who miscarry. Why is this? There are two main reasons.
First, the whole subject seems to be taboo, and where there is silence there is ignorance. I do not want to turn miscarriage into something suitable for gossip on social occasions; it is far too important a subject for that. But everyone in this country will have a friend, a relative or a wife who has miscarried and it is much better to talk about it with sympathy and understanding than to try to sweep
The second reason is the attitude of some in the medical profession. It is most certainly not my aim to take a swipe at the medical profession in general terms. But there are far too many instances of neglect, indifference and sometimes downright cruelty. I quote some comments from women who have had miscarriages on the treatment they received at the hands of the medical profession:
"Doctors don't care. They turn you out of hospital and don't even bother to talk to you."
This is a comment from a woman who miscarried at 12 weeks:
"I saw the foetus and kept it in a dish for the doctor to see. He glanced at it to see that I had had a complete miscarriage than he casually flushed it down the loo. Life is absolute hell. I feel hurt, angry and completely in the dark. If anyone else says, 'Never mind, you can have another', or, 'It's natures way of telling you something was wrong with the baby', I shall scream!"
Another women said:
"Why didn't any doctor bother to tell me what to do when I had a miscarriage? Why did no one warn me I might haemorrhage? How was I to know the dangers?"
Yet another wrote:
"It happened 17 years ago, but I have never got over it. The depression lasted years and nearly broke up my marriage. All because no one talked to me about it."
Finally, perhaps the most harrowing story of all:
"The consultant was sweet. My own doctor was superb.
262
But the staff at the hospital were horrible. They said, 'You haven't really lost a baby. It was nothing much at this stage. Why are you making so much fuss?' I had five hours of excruciating pain, much worse than childbirth, then no one talked to me or told me a thing. I didn't know what they had done with the dead baby—thrown it in the incinerator, I suppose. Then they wheeled me down the main ward through all the happy mothers holding their new babies. A girl in the next bed was there for an abortion. She asked me, 'Are you here to get rid of yours?' If I had been able to get off the trolley, I would have dragged her out of bed and knocked her down."
From all this one can only assume that there are too many members of the medical profession who see miscarriage simply as just another physical condition that needs such-and-such treatment. That is a very grave misjudgment. What a woman who has had a miscarriage has suffered is a bereavement, for which grief and mourning are entirely appropriate.
In a recent survey members of the Miscarriage Association revealed that 80 per cent. of them were left feeling angry and bitter by their experiences. Of those, no fewer than 66 per cent. thought that the medical treatment that they had had was inadequate, even poor. These women complained that they received no information, no counselling and no advice. Often after a miscarriage a woman goes home to relatives who, though well meaning, carefully avoid the subject, just at the time when she most needs to talk about it.
So what is to be done? I should like to put the following six suggestions to the Minister. The first is pre-natal care. When women first go to see their general practitioner at the start of a pregnancy they should be told about the possibility of a miscarriage, what it is and what happens. I realise very well that there will be women who at the start of a pregnancy are very happy and that they will not want to hear about even the possibility of a miscarriage. Nevertheless, I feel that they should be told about it.
My second suggestion relates to scans. Access to scans needs to be improved, especially in an emergency. That includes weekends. We all know that emergencies almost always arise at weekends, or at bank holidays or in the middle of the night. Scan operators should be allowed to tell their patients the results as soon as possible, not hours later when the information often has to be relayed through doctors and consultants back to the woman concerned.
My third suggestion concerns disposal arrangements —a very sensitive issue. The loss should be treated with respect and dignity, not just flushed down the lavatory or consigned to the incinerator with the rest of the hospital waste. This is not a waste product.
Fourthly, there is the question of follow-up care. Many women are sent away from hospital without a single word of explanation or comfort. What came across to me very strongly when I was making my preparations for this debate was that very many women would have felt much better if only someone at the hospital had perhaps held their hand, or put an arm round them and just offered some words of comfort. It does not cost anything to do that, nor does it take much time. These women should be given the opportunity to discuss what has happened with an informed and, above all, sympathetic health professional. Some women will need access to skilled counsellors, although this is rarely available. I referred, in one of my anecdotes, to one woman who said that the depression following a miscarriage lasted for 17 years. Every health authority should plan the provision of

263
follow-up care involving both hospital services and community services. There are practical matters too on which a woman will need advice. How long can she expect her bleeding to continue after miscarriage? Should she use tampons or sanitary towels? Nobody tells her. How can she know? Not only is she left prey to depression and anxiety and, very often, a great deal of physical pain, but she does not even know the answers to such questions.
The fifth suggestion concerns statistics. Detailed miscarriage statistics according to class and region are not available. I realise the difficulties, but even an approximation would be very helpful.
The sixth, and final, suggestion relates to the Miscarriage Association. This association does excellent work. However good the health service provision, many women need the support and information that only such a support group can give. The Miscarriage Association has branches in various places all over the country. Its headquarters is in Yorkshire. It could do so much more. Its founder recounted that, at the beginning, she was on the telephone until the small hours of the morning. She said that she did not get out of her nightdress until about tea time. Her phone rang and rang and rang. She talked to desperate women who had suffered miscarriage and who wanted to talk to someone about their experiences.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Minister is looking slightly uncomfortable when I talk about money. I know that the Miscarriage Association, like many other organisations promoting worthy causes, has approached him. Nevertheless, I press upon him the excellent work that it does.
I hope that in dealing with this subject tonight I have done two things: first, raised public consciousness of this extremely important but much-ignored matter; secondly, drawn attention to the fact that those who have suffered miscarriage need not fear rejection at the hands of the public, or of their friends, or of their spouses, or feel that in some way they have failed.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), in raising what he has quite rightly described as a difficult subject, has done us a service. As he made clear, miscarriage is an event that occurs in the lives of many families in this country. It is not as uncommon as one might like to think. My hon. Friend, by raising the issue, has achieved his objective of increasing awareness, in this House and outside, of the problem and of encouraging the idea that a family in which there has been a miscarriage or a stillbirth should not suffer the sense of rejection or of guilt that very often typifies that event.
I should like to begin by setting the subject in context. As my hon. Friend rightly said, although it is rarely discussed, miscarriage happens much more often than public discussion would suggest. In the nature of things, it is not an event that lends itself to central statistical measurement. My hon. Friend sought better statistics, but, of his six items, that is one of the more difficult to respond to as miscarriages are not always the subject of sufficiently detailed medical intervention to allow accurate reporting.
Estimates exist on how often miscarriages happen. The best estimate is that between one in three and one in five
264
conceptions end in miscarriage. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is far from being an unusual or uncommon occurrence.
Happily, stillbirth is much less common. Obviously, however, it is much more traumatic for the family to whom it happens. Stillbirth lends itself to statistical measurement. I am happy to say that the statistics reflect a substantial success story for the health service since its inception. In 1948, there were just over 23 stillbirths per thousand live births, but by 1989 the figure had fallen to 4·7 per thousand. That is a substantial reduction in the incidence of stillbirth, and it reflects a similar reduction in perinatal deaths in Britain.
The reduction in the incidence of stillbirth and perinatal death is an important public health objective of the health service. We have achieved substantial reductions since 1948, which has continued in the 1980s. We are not complacent about that; there is still substantial variation between and within regions, and the opportunity exists for further reduction in the incidence of that unhappy event. We have made substantial progress and are committed to seeking to continue to improve on that record.
My hon. Friend rightly stressed the need for individuals who have suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth in their family to be encouraged to talk openly about it and to understand the physiological and psychological implications of what has happened. My hon. Friend also rightly stressed that good public health education should ensure that women who suffer a miscarriage understand the physiological consequences of miscarriage. We should try to ensure that if a woman suffers a miscarriage she is aware of the danger of haemorrhaging, that she takes the necessary medical advice, and that she recognises the symptoms. That should be one of the objectives of our health education programme. I shall seek to ensure that the objective that my hon. Friend raised is achieved.
My hon. Friend is right to say that not only must we concentrate on the physiological implications but we must ensure that couples have the opportunity to understand the psychological pressures which miscarriage can cause. My hon. Friend described feelings of bitterness and anger. That is true. An individual may feel angry and bitter and, perhaps more powerfully, may feel guilty, looking back over the past three, six or nine months and saying, "What did I do which led to the conception not being brought to a successful delivery?" It is to try to provide an outlet for such questioning that proper social support should exist for women who suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth.
My hon. Friend was anxious not to take a swipe, as he put it, at insensitive health professionals. I would be much less circumspect about that. If a health professional was insensitive, I would be happy to see a swipe taken at that person, because it should be part of the training of all health professionals to remember that, although they are dealing with something that they understand and they regard as routine, the patient may not understand it and will definitely not regard it as routine. Therefore, in every instance the health professional should treat the patient with great sensitivity.
I believe that professionals in the National Health Service set themselves a standard of sensitivity which they meet. The standard of professional service offered through the NHS is very high in the great majority of cases, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to instances of insensitive treatment, not least in order to ensure that

265
those who are responsible for clinical standards within the health service are aware of such instances and use them to try to ensure that they do not recur.
My hon. Friend also stressed the importance of follow-up care by ensuring that there is available not only professional health expertise but also the social support that is necessary to restore confidence and encourage the sufferer back into a full normal life. My hon. Friend mentioned the role of social workers, and hospital social workers in particular, in providing that support. They are important and play a valuable role. Hospital chaplains and the generality of social workers also play an important role, as do general practitioners. All involved in offering health and social care to the community have a role to play in ensuring that those who suffer miscarriage or stillbirth understand and are helped to work through the implications. I acknowledge the work of health professionals and of social workers in offering support.
I also pay tribute to the work done by the voluntary sector, particularly in support of sufferers. My hon. Friend mentioned the work of the Miscarriage Association, to which I will return. It is also proper to mention the work of the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society and of other voluntary bodies working in this sphere, notably Cruse —bereavement care—and the Partnership of Child Loss Support Groups, all of which are active and all of which receive public support through the section 64 grant programme to the voluntary sector. They are all active in providing precisely the kind of support for which my hon. Friend rightly and properly calls.
I want to refer briefly to a couple of points raised by my hon. Friend about the disposal of the results of miscarriage or of stillbirth. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that sensitive handling should be regarded as a high priority. He rightly says that the remains are not waste products and must not be handled as such. They are certainly not regarded in that light by the bereaved parents. The Government are on record as accepting that we should change the definition of stillbirth so that it is brought in line with the law on abortion. We have made it clear that we are sympathetic to the proposition that a
266
foetus that is born dead after 24 weeks should be entitled to the protection of the rules that currently operate for stillbirths after 28 weeks.
Disposal and the other handling of these tissues in hospitals are factors that should be addressed by the guidelines which the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society has drawn up in collaboration with professional bodies in the voluntary sector and which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will launch on 27 February. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that our welcome to those guidelines represents a degree of interest in the importance of setting standards for the proper and sensitive handling of these issues.
My hon. Friend referred to the work of the Miscarriage Association. He will know that the Department of Health has provided support to that body since 1986 under the terms of the section 64 scheme which provides support to voluntary bodies from the health budget. In the current financial year, the association has received a grant of £4,000 and the Department is now considering two applications from the association for the next three years. We are considering, first, the renewal of core grant towards central administrative costs and, secondly, a project funding application to make information about miscarriage accessible to any woman who has suffered a miscarriage, including those from ethnic minority groups —a target group that is of special importance in ensuring the understanding of the full physiological and psychological consequences of these events. I want to place particular importance on ensuring that we get through to ethnic minority groups as part of our target population.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is too early to divulge the outcome of those applications. However, they are being considered and I can assure him that they will be considered sympathetically. As I have stressed, the Department recognises and values the role of voluntary bodies in providing the support that families need when they suffer such an instance. We have supported a range of voluntary organisations in this area in the past and we intend to continue to do so. We shall consider very sympathetically the applications currently in from the Miscarriage Association.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY

  Oil and Gas, Wales
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the results of the exploration programme for oil and gas off the Welsh coast.

  Mr. Moynihan
  One significant discovery of oil and one of gas have been made from exploration drilling undertaken to date in waters off the coast of Wales. Both discoveries were made in 1990 in block 110/13 of the United Kingdom continental shelf, for which Hamilton Brothers Oil and Gas Ltd. acts as operator. The company is planning further drilling to assess the likely extent of both discoveries.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of wells drilled in waters off the Welsh coast for each year from 1970 to 1990 in the exploration for oil and gas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A total of 15 exploration wells and one appraisal well were drilled in waters off the coast of Wales between 1970 and 1990. The appraisal well and four of the exploration wells were drilled in 1990; and there were four exploration well starts in 1976, two in 1978 and one in each of the years 1974, 1984, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of oil resources in the oilfield discovered in Block 110/13.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The oil discovery in block 110/13 of the United Kingdom continental shelf announced by the operator, Hamilton Brothers Oil and Gas Ltd., in December 1990 will require further appraisal before an estimate can be made of the amount of oil which is potentially recoverable.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about safety precautions in operation to guard construction workers and other non-permanent staff from over-exposure to radiation at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  All people who are exposed to ionising radiations during their employment are subject to the requirements of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. I am advised that all workers whether permanent or otherwise who are exposed to ionising radiations at the British Nuclear Fuels plc Sellafield plant receive appropriate training, medical checks, protective clothing and routine monitoring of dose uptake.

  Welsh Water
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further action he now proposes to take in the light of the acquisition of a 10 per cent. stake in South Wales Electricity by Welsh Water following his letter of 22 January to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have at present nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Member in question.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the proportion of electricity generating capacity that will remain in the public sector for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The nuclear electricity genera ting capacity in England and Wales will remain in the public sector. Under the terms of the non-fossil fuel obligation, the regional electricity companies are required to contract for amounts of nuclear generating capacity that decline from 8·553 GW in 1990–91 to 7·388 GW in 1995–96. In 1990–91 the nuclear obligation represented about 14 per cent. of the total generating capacity in England and Wales. The proportion that the nuclear obligation will represent in future years will largely depend on decisions within the private sector as to the amount of non-nuclear capacity.

PRIME MINISTER

  United States President
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has spoken by telephone to the President of the United States of America since 1 January.

  The Prime Minister
  I have spoken to President Bush a number of times since the beginning of January and shall continue to do so.

  The Gulf
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, based on the manufacturer's estimate of extent of damage beyond targets hit, he can provide a conservative estimate of civilian casualties to date in the Gulf war.

  The Prime Minister
  The targets being attacked by coalition forces are sites which could pose a threat to allied forces or facilities supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. These attacks have been carefully planned, with the aim of keeping civilian casualties as low as possible.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress on the liberation of Kuwait.

  The Prime Minister
  The allied air campaign continues to reduce Iraq's military capability and its ability to support the occupation of Kuwait. The campaign is proceeding as planned and air supremacy has now been achieved. Coalition forces have successfully dealt with Iraqi incursions into Saudi Arabia, and have largely destroyed Iraq's limited naval capability.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Administration
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the International Tropical Timber Organisation's timber projects in(a) Tefe's national forest, (b) Rio Preto's national forest and (c) Ibirama national forest in the light of policy towards commercial logging in tropical rain forests.

  Mrs. Chalker
  These Brazilian projects have three common objectives: (i) to help counter unsustainable exploitation of the forests in question while affording protection to fauna and water and soil resources, (ii) to expand markets for non-wood products both nationally and internationally, and (iii) to develop management models for the sustainable production of wood and other forest products.

  At the last meeting of ITTO in Japan in November 1990, while not objecting to the projects in principle, the United Kingdom opposed them in the forest management committee proceedings on the grounds that they were not appropriate for ITTO funding. The United Kingdom argued that as the three projects involved the development of natural resources, it would be more appropriate to pursue these under Brazil's national plan, under which the Government of Brazil now provide stringent environmental safeguards.

  In spite of these arguments, the consensus in ITTO's council was that the three projects justified ITTO funding and they were duly approved.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the £8·75 million announced in Addis Ababa by the Minister for Overseas Development on 29 January last is to be paid from sums allocated to the year 1990–91 and for 1991–92, respectively.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Of the £8·75 million new humanitarian aid for Ethiopia announced by the Minister for Overseas Development on 29 January 1991, £3·75 million is available immediately. Orders for the remaining £5 million food aid placed shortly will be for delivery and payment in 1991–92.

THE ARTS

  British Youth Opera
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent representations he has had from British Youth Opera; what response he has made; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of British Youth Opera, including my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), who is a member of the council, and Miss Valerie Masterson, its vice president, on 30 January. I very much welcomed the opportunity to learn more of the company's valuable work with young opera singers. The funding of individual arts organisations is a matter for the Arts Council, with which the company is in close touch.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EC Internal Market Council
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the matters to be discussed at the EC Internal Market Council on 18 February.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is highly likely that the 18 February Internal Market Council will be cancelled. If a Council is called, I will write to the hon. Member to let her know the items on the agenda.

  Dematerialisation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made with dematerialisation.

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials are continuing to work closely with the International Stock Exchange and other regulatory bodies to determine the appropriate legal and regulatory structure of TAURUS. This work is in parallel with the ISE's work on compensation and software preparation. It is of key importance that the right investor protection environment and legal framework are created for the electronic recording and transfer of shares. All these tasks are proving to be more complex than originally envisaged. Draft regulations under section 207 of the Companies Act 1989 should be published for comment in the next few weeks. I expect to put revised draft regulations before the House later this year, in good time for the implementation of TAURUS by the ISE.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for the financial year 1989–90 in respect of the Export Credits Guarantee Department (i) the cumulative deficit for the year and the size of the change since 31 March 1989, (ii) the level and increase of premium income, (iii) the size and increase of the provision for claims, (iv) the turnover of exports guarantee by the ECGD, and (v) the premium income and trade results for insurance services and the project group for 1989–90, in a manner comparable with note 2 of the ECGD financial statement for 1988–89 (HC 153).

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is included in ECGD's Trading Accounts for 1989–90. These were laid in Parliament on 31 January and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria he will use to calculate the selling price of the business of the Insurance Services Group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: The criteria for evaluating the bids will be price, commitment, understanding and strong financial resources.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has as to what policy EC member states intend to pursue on privatisation of their state export insurance services in the run-up to 1992; and if he will publish it.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: The existing status of European Community export credit

  77
  agencies and the manner in which they administer short-term export credit insurance differ. Thus the changes necessary to bring their operations into line with the needs of the single European market will also vary.

  A number of short-term export credit schemes are already operated primarily by companies in the private sector, but with some degree of government reinsurance, for example, in Germany (Hermes), Netherlands (NCM), Italy (SIAC) and Ireland (Insurance Corporation of Ireland). In Denmark, the agency (EKR) is an arm of central government but it is understood that there are plans for privatisation.

  France (Coface) is now placing most of its short-term reinsurance in the private sector and Portugal (COSEC) is a public limited liability company where those shares not held by the private sector will be sold later this year. In Spain CESCE is a joint stock company with over 40 per cent. of its shares not held by the Government.

  There is increasing acceptance by appropriate authorities within the EC that action is necessary further to reduce state involvement in the short-term export credit insurance sector where business operations overlap with those of private sector credit insurers, but not all member states have yet finalised arrangements to put this into effect.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any proposals for changes in the level of aid offered to the shipbuilding industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  Following the decision of the European Commission, which was notified to member states on 21 January 1991, I have decided to reduce the maximum level of support for merchant ships from 20 per cent. to 13 per cent. with effect from 1 January 1991.

  I have also decided that, in line with the Commission's ruling, maximum support for small ships will be reduced from the same date. Following the adoption of the seventh directive on aid to shipbuilding which amended the Community definition of small ship from one costing less than 6 million ecus to one costing less than 10 million ecus, the United Kingdom definition of a small ship has been extended to include all ships costing less than £13 million. The sliding scale used to determine the subsidy levels for small ships has been amended so that support for ships costing less than 10 million ecus will fall below the upper level of 9 per cent. set by the Commission. Shipbuilders relief of 2 per cent. is included in these figures.

  Theft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what precautions are taken to prevent the theft of equipment from his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 January 1991]: All departmental staff have a duty to prevent and report loss. The measures prescribed in the Manual of Government Accounting are fully implemented. In addition a range of physical precautions is in force. Security guards are, for example, instructed to challenge persons leaving buildings with items of equipment. Some equipment is indelibly marked as the property of the Department.

  Imports
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what products from(a) Poland, (b) Czechoslovakia, (c) Romania, (d) Hungary and (e) Bulgaria are still subject to anti-dumping duties and import quotas, whether originating nationally or from the EC, or through the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: 1 refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 17 January 1991 at columns 593–94. I have placed in the Library of the House a list of all definitive anti-dumping remedies in force on 31 December 1990.

  All products requiring an individual import licence are listed in the open general import licence of 4 December 1987, as amended, which is published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I have placed in the Library of the House notice to importers No. 2291 of 3 January which sets out the 1991 quota levels for restricted textiles from inter alia the five countries mentioned and notice to importers No. 2293 of the same date which includes the provisional 1991 arrangements for the United Kingdom's national restrictions on imports from Romania. Notices to importers are published in Thursday editions of Lloyd's List International.

TRANSPORT

  Airedale Route
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the inspector's report following the public inquiry into stage 3 of the A629/A650 Airedale route; and when he expects to make a further statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The inspector's report was received in May last year.

  The joint decision of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport will be announced as soon as there has been a full consideration of all the issues.

  Traffic Congestion, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has for relieving traffic congestion in London.

  Mr. Chope
  The Road Traffic Bill provides for the establishment of a network of priority routes to help alleviate traffic congestion.

  The record levels of investment which we are supporting in London Transport and British Rail will help to make rail and bus travel increasingly attractive alternatives to car use in London, further helping to relieve traffic congestion.

  Safety Restraints
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been spent publicising the legislation which prohibits children from travelling in cars without safety restraint.

  Mr. Chope
  A total of £748,000 has been spent on advertising, posters and leaflets to publicise the legislation requiring children to wear seat restraints in cars where fitted.

  Carbon Monoxide Emissions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement about including carbon monoxide emission level testing in the MOT vehicle test.

  Mr. Chope
  I expect to make a further announcement soon.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to ensure that the benefits of the channel tunnel are shared by people and industry in the Doncaster area.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have so far approved schemes valued at some £750 million of a total of £1·4 billion worth of improvements planned by British Rail. BR's plans include direct passenger services from the tunnel to the east coast main line. Pending availability of special trains for services north of London, the board is examining the possibility of running connecting services to Waterloo after the tunnel opens. The plans also include the provision of new international freight services to south Yorkshire. A number of major schemes in the Government's roads programme will improve access between Yorkshire and the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the major schemes that have been approved by his Department to improve(a) roads and (b) rail access to the channel tunnel from Doncaster and the north.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has a substantial programme of trunk road improvements at various stages of preparation, many of which will improve links between the north and the channel tunnel.

  These improvements include the M40 extension from Birmingham to Oxford which was opened to traffic on 16 January and will relieve congestion on the M1, and the following major schemes which have also been approved and are under construction:

  A1 Bramham-Wetherby Improvement

  A282 Dartford crossing approach roads

  M20 Junctions 5–8 widening

  M20 Maidstone to Ashford

  The privately financed Dartford-Thurrock bridge is also due to be completed this year. Preparation has begun on schemes to upgrade the A1 to motorway standard between the M25 and Tyneside, to widen a large part of the M1, and on a study to increase the capacity of the M25. In addition the Department is giving a great deal of support to local road schemes which will serve channel tunnel traffic.

  British Rail plans to invest an initial £1·4 billion for channel tunnel services to enable international services to operate from London and the regions. To date approval has been given for the following schemes, among others:
  80

  Scheme

  £ million

  Waterloo terminal

  106

  Maintenance depot

  81

  30 Intercapital Transmanche super trains

  378

  Track and signalling improvements

  50

  30 class 92 freight locomotives

  93

  Electrification of the Tonbridge-Redhill line

  19

  There are a number of improvements for which the Secretary of State's approval is not required. These are not included in the list but form part of the overall £1·4 billion investment planned.

  Traffic Accidents (Children)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many primary school children were in cars involved in road traffic accidents in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1989, 6,193 children aged 5 to 11 were injured while travelling in a car which was involved in a road traffic accident. Of these, 27 were killed, 546 were injured and 5,620 were slightly injured. The number of uninjured persons travelling in vehicles involved in accidents is not available.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there has been an environmental impact assessment of the east London river crossing.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 28 November, 1990 at col.410.

  Diesel Engines (Air Pollution)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the report from the Treasury Solicitor about the appropriate legal base for European Community document 6701/90 on air pollution from diesel-engined vehicles; and when he will provide copies of the report to members of European Standing Committee A.

  Mr. Chope
  I passed this information to Committee Members on 4 February.

  Cycle Routes, London
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the network of cycle routes in London.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on Friday 1 February at col.701.

  Thames River Services
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the piers on the Thames licensed for riverbus traffic and any such piers that could receive such traffic.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Port of London Authority (PLA) indicates that the following piers are used by Riverbus Partnership on the tidal Thames:

  (a) Greenwich pier

  (b) Festival pier

  (c) Charing Cross pier

  (d) London City Airport pier

  (e) West India pier

  (f) London Bridge City pier

  (g) Swan lane pier

  (h) Chelsea harbour pier

  (i) Putney pier

  (j) Westminster pier

  The following could receive such traffic:

  (a) Cadogan pier

  (b) Barrier Garden pier

  (c) Masthouse Terrace pier

  (d) Greenland pier

  (e) Butlers Wharf pier

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many licences have been issued for the operations of a river taxi service on the Thames.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None on the tidal reaches of the River Thames.

  Passenger certificates have been issued by the Department for the eight Riverbus Partnership catamarans for the tidal reaches and 47 licences have been issued by the PLA (Port of London Authority) for other vessels carrying up to 12 passengers.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the report of the road research laboratory on the operation of the red route in north London; and who he expects to consult on the future of the red route.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: No decision has been made about publication of any report that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory may produce on the red route pilot scheme as monitoring will take place throughout 1991.

  Consultation will be arranged in accordance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the powers under which he acted in introducing a red route on Archway road, N6, Holloway road, N19 and N7 and Upper street, N1.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: Section 9(1), (2) and (3), and 10(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce the Humber bridge board's debt.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: The board has presented a case proposing the writing off of some of its debt. We are considering this carefully and shall respond as soon as possible.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kurds
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on conditions in the Kurdish areas within the current Iraqi borders.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We regularly receive information from a number of sources about conditions in the Kurdish areas of Iraq.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning abuses of human rights of Kurds living within the borders of Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We receive many reports of human rights abuses in Iraq and against the Kurdish population, including, for example, those of Amnesty International and Middle East Watch.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the numbers of Kurdish people who have disappeared in Iraq under the Government of Saddam Hussein.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of reports of such disappearances. No precise figures are available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will establish communication with the leaders of the Kurdish resistance to Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Officials in this Department already have contacts with the leadership of Kurdish opposition groups from Iraq.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to ensure that those responsible for the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish people will be brought before suitable international courts.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Iraq has not accepted the jurisdiction of any international court in this matter. We have, however, ensured on numerous occasions that the subject has received proper attention at the United Nations. We were active in securing the adoption of Security Council resolutions 612 and 620 condemning chemical weapon attacks during the Iran-Iraq war and drew attention at the Paris conference on chemical weapons in January 1989 to the compelling evidence that Iraq had used chemical weapons against its Kurdish people after the ceasefire.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Amnesty International on the situation of the Kurds living in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have spoken to Amnesty International on a number of occasions about our common concern about the human rights situation in Iraq, including abuses against the Kurdish people.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with allied coalition partners concerning the present state and the future of the Kurdish people.
  83
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in close contact with our coalition partners over all aspects of the future of the Gulf region after the resolution of the present crisis.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Iraq concerning the oppression of Kurds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have repeatedly made clear to the Iraqi authorities our concern at Iraqi human rights violations against the Kurdish population, both in bilateral contacts and with our EC partners.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to pursue the creation of a Kurdish homeland within the borders of Iraq in discussions on a post-war middle eastern regional settlement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 24 January, at column 287, there can be no question of our seeking support for the establishment of a separate Kurdish state within the boundaries of present-day Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the Kurdish people.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We follow the Kurdish issue closely. We have monitored reports of human rights abuses against the Kurds in Iraq and made repeated protests about these to the Iraqi authorities, both in Baghdad and in London.

  Presidency of the Security Council 1981–1990

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  January

  China

  USSR

  Togo

  Nicaragua

  France

  February

  France

  United Kingdom

  USSR

  Pakistan

  India

  March

  German DR

  United States

  United Kingdom

  Peru

  Madagascar

  April

  Ireland

  Zaire

  United States

  Ukrainian SSR

  Peru

  May

  Japan

  China

  Zaire

  USSR

  Thailand

  June

  Mexico

  France

  Zimbabwe

  United Kingdom

  Trinidad and Tobago

  July

  Niger

  Guyana

  China

  United States

  Ukrainian SSR

  August

  Panama

  Ireland

  France

  Upper Volta1

  USSR

  September

  Philippines

  Japan

  Guyana

  Zimbabwe

  United Kingdom

  October

  Spain

  Jordan

  Jordan

  Burkina Faso1

  United States

  November

  Tunisia

  Panama

  Malta

  China

  Australia

  December

  Uganda

  Poland

  Netherlands

  Egypt

  Burkina Faso

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  January

  China

  Venezuela

  United Kingdom

  Malaysia

  Cote d'Ivoire

  February

  Congo

  Zambia

  United States

  Nepal

  Cuba

  March

  Denmark

  Argentina

  Yugoslavia

  Senegal

  Democratic Yemen2

  April

  France

  Bulgaria

  Zambia

  USSR

  Ethiopia

  May

  Ghana

  China

  Algeria

  United Kingdom

  Finland

  June

  Madagascar

  Congo

  Argentina

  United States

  France

  July

  Thailand

  France

  Brazil

  Yugoslavia

  Malaysia

  August

  Trinidad and Tobago

  German FR

  China

  Algeria

  Romania

  September

  USSR

  Ghana

  France

  Brazil

  USSR

  October

  United Arab Emirates

  Italy

  German FR

  Canada

  United Kingdom

  November

  United Kingdom

  Japan

  Italy

  China

  United States

  December

  United States

  USSR

  Japan

  Colombia

  Yemen2

  1 On 6 August 1984 Upper Volta became Burkina Faso and therefore changed its position in the Council's alphabetical rotation.

  2 On 22 May 1990 Democratic Yemen merged with the Yemen Arab Republic to become Yemen. It therefore changed its position in the Council's rotation.

  84
  We believe that the Kurdish people should enjoy adequate representation and the same rights of cultural and ethnic self-expression as other citizens in all the countries in which they live.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the treaty of Sevres and the joint declaration of 1922 between Britain and Iraq and their effect on the Kurdish people.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our records show that the treaty of Sevres was never ratified and, consequently, never came into force. It was overtaken by the treaty of Lausanne of 1923 which established the present-day frontiers of the region bounded by Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

  State Borders
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states recognised by the United Kingdom do not have clearly defined borders.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom recognises many states whose borders are not fully agreed with their neighbours. This is normally a bilateral matter for the states concerned.

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of those states which have occupied the chair of the United Nations Security Council in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  EC Decisions
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the outcome of the review of national implementation of EC decisions which the European Council asked the Commission to undertake at its Dublin meeting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Rome European Council in December discussed a Commission report including a review of implementation of single market measures. The report confirmed Britain's excellent record. The European Council underlined the importance of timely implementation and enforcement of measures and noted that action by the Commission and member states has reduced delays.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the length of the curfew now imposed on the west bank and Gaza strip by the Israeli authorities; what has been the length of other curfews in the last three years; what allowance has been made for people in the occupied territories to gain access to food and medical attention; what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Israeli authorities on the curfew; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The present curfew was imposed when hostilities broke out in the Gulf. The Israeli authorities have not said when it will end. We do not keep records of the length of previous curfews. We are concerned about the impact of this curfew on the well-being of the Palestinian population of the occupied territories and in particular about access to food and medical attention. We are encouraging a joint EC demarche to the Israeli authorities.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the availability of gas masks for Palestinians in the occupied territories; if he has made any representations to the Israeli authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 31 January at column 578.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Roads, Newtownards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Court street access to the Court street/South street car park in Newtownards was closed; why it was closed; and what proposals he has to reopen this access.

  Mr. Needham
  The Court street access to the Court street/South street car park in Newtownards was closed in mid-June 1990 due to a major mechanical fault in the automatic barrier. The machinery has now been repaced and the access reopened on 14 January 1991.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total amount of compensation to date paid to ex-residents of the Kincora boys' home; if he will itemise each payment and state on what date it was paid; how many cases are still to be processed; and on what dates he expects further cases to be settled.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: To date, compensation payments totalling £63,500 have been made to seven ex-residents of Kincora. Five ex-residents have received payments in respect of abuse suffered solely in Kincora, as follows: £10,000 on 26 May; £7,500 on 26 May 1989; £6,000 on 10 August 1989; £20,000 on 13 June 1990 and £10,000 on 25 September 1990. One ex-resident received a joint payment of £5,000 on 31 March 1988 an connection with abuse suffered in Kincora and another children's home and one ex-resident received a payment of £4,500 on 28 November 1990 in respect of a claim for abuse suffered in a children's home other than Kincora. Three claims from ex-residents of Kincora are still outstanding involving, respectively, abuse suffered in Kincora, in Kincora and another home, and a home other than Kincora, but it is not possible to say when they will be settled. In addition, a claim submitted by an ex-resident of Kincora in 1986 has to date not been pursued.

  There are also two cases, recorded in the replies on 26 October 1989, Official Report, column 538, and 19 January 1990, Official Report, column 427, relating to abuse in children's homes investigated by the Hughes inquiry which did not involve ex-residents of Kincora itself. A payment of £2,500 in respect of one claim was made on 19 July 1989, and the other has not to date been pursued by the claimants.

SCOTLAND

  Heart Disease, Scotland
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new initiatives he is taking to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The consultation document "Health Education in Scotland: A National Policy Statement", which I launched on 9 October 1990, identified coronary heart disease as a national priority for health education and set out our target of reducing mortality from heart disease for people under age 65 by 25 per cent. by the year 2000.

  A twin strategy involving both an individual and population approach is proposed. The individual strategy envisages family doctors identifying people who are at risk, thus enabling appropriate counselling or necessary treatment to be provided. The population strategy consists of promoting, at national and local levels, the positive lifestyle approach and in particular the aspects of healthy eating, non-smoking and exercise. National programmes will be undertaken by the Health Education Board for Scotland, which will replace the Scottish Health Education Group on 1 April, and will be complemented by action at local level by health boards and voluntary organisations. I am making additional funds available to the new board to enable programmes on priority topics such as coronary heart disease to be vigorously pursued.
  87
  As an interim measure, I have also asked the Scottish Health Education Group to develop a coronary heart disease programme which will reinforce awareness of the main behaviours associated with the disease and the often simple steps which individuals can take to reduce the risk. I hope to launch the new programme shortly.

  Premature deaths from coronary heart disease in Scotland declined by 17 per cent. between 1980 and 1988, but much remains to be done. The enhanced health education effort now in train will facilitate further progress towards the target that I have set.

  National Testing
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total cost of publishing, advertising, administering, marking and collating the results of national tests in primary schools at levels four and seven.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Planned provision for 1990–91 for the production of test units was £593,000 and is £579,000 for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has held with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about legal responsibilities for education authorities in deciding whether action for prosecutions should be taken against parents who decide to withhold their children from national tests planned for Scottish pupils in primaries four and seven.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No consultations are necessary. The legal position is clear. There is a duty on education authorities to administer testing.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report, in each case, which of Orkney health board, Shetland health board, Western Isles health board, Highlands health board, Tayside health board, Fife health board, Forth Valley health board, Lothian health board, Borders health board, Dumfries and Galloway health board, Ayrshire and Arran health board, Lanarkshire health board, Greater Glasgow health board, and Argyll and Clyde health board has employed outside financial consultants in preparing business plans for direct management and/or NHS trust status; the name of the consultants; and the cost to each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following health boards have employed external consultants to help prepare business plans:

  Health board

  Consultants

  Cost to health board (£)

  Forth Valley

  Pannell, Kerr, Forster

  11,500

  Greater Glasgow

  Pannell, Kerr, Forster

  13,000

  Lanarkshire

  Coopers, Lybrand, Deloitte

  2,000

  Lothian

  Coopers, Lybrand, Deloitte

  2,000

  Some work has also been carried out by Coopers, Lybrand, Deloitte on behalf of Ayrshire and Arran health board, but directly funded by my Department, as part of
  88
  a study on the role of health boards and the purchaser-provider relationship. The cost of this work on business plans, a small part of the overall project, is not separately identifiable.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what connection is made in policy terms between the amount of money available for employment training and the number of people unemployed.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The allocation of provision for employment training takes account of the fact that it is just one of a number of Government measures designed to help unemployed people back to work. Other relevant factors are that it is focused on helping those who have been unemployed for six months or more and who need training, and gives priority to people in the guarantee group (those aged between 18 and 24 who have been unemployed between six and 12 months) and the aim group (those under 50 who have been unemployed for more than two years).

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the funding allocations to be made by Scottish Homes for 1991–92 under the various strategic headings announced in its recent strategic plan.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: I expect Scottish Homes to submit for approval its proposed expenditure programme for 1991–92 later this month. My right hon. Friend and I will consider these proposals carefully and the agreed expenditure programme will be announced by Scottish Homes as soon as possible thereafter.

EMPLOYMENT

  Sellafield Death
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive has given to the circumstances surrounding the death of David Dunn, a former employee at the Sellafield nuclear power plant.

  Mr. Forth
  The conditions attached to the nuclear site licence for Sellafield at the time of Mr. Dunn's employment required the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate to be informed if any person was exposed to radiation in excess of the annual statutory limits. The nuclear installations inspectorate would examine the circumstances of the exposure and see whether any improvements to safety could be identified. There was no indication from Mr. Dunn's radiation dose record to suggest that he had exceeded statutory limits and consequently no information concerning his case was given to the nuclear installations inspectorate at the time.

  During 1990 the nuclear installations inspectorate became aware of Mr. Dunn's case. The circumstances of his employment and his radiation dose record were examined by the nuclear installations inspectorate and technical assistance to Her Majesty's coroner was given at the inquest into Mr. Dunn's death, which was held at Whitehaven on 26 June 1990.

  Employment Offices (Closure)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the employment offices planned for closure in the three counties of Yorkshire and Humberside; and if he will give the grounds in each case.

  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.

  Health and Safety Inspectorate
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions the health and safety inspectorate initiated in Wales in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Provisional figures for the year beginning 1 April 1989 show that the Health and Safety Executive's agriculture, factories, mines and quarries inspectorates and the nuclear installations inspectorate laid a total of 119 informations for breaches of health and safety legislation in Wales.

  Nuclear Power Workers
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Health and Safety Commission's working group on ionising radiations has considered the subject of the protection of(a) construction workers and (b) indirectly employed labour at nuclear power plants.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The working group on ionising radiations (WGIR) has not considered the specific protection of these groups of workers. However, WGIR does consider all matters concerning the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 and related radiation protection matters that are referred to it by the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has, or intends to have, any discussions with the National Radiological Protection Board over the protection of construction workers at sites under their sphere of responsibility.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has no specific responsibility for construction workers. However, the Health and Safety Executive maintains a continuing dialogue with the NRPB on matters relating to radiation protection.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what differences exist in levels of protection offered between construction workers involved in the building of a nuclear plant and those directly employed in the plant.

  Mr. Forth
  None. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and its relevant statutory provisions require the same standards of protection to be applied to all workers at nuclear plants whether they are directly employed in the plant or are involved in its construction.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan TEC concerning the start date for the(a) construction of and (b) operation of its new training headquarters.

  Mr. Jackson
  South Glamorgan TEC started operations on 4 February and currently occupy premises at Tyglas road, Llanishen. The TEC board proposes to move to permanent accommodation in Dumballs road, Cardiff. Negotiations are under way but no decision on the starting date of construction or the eventual date of occupation has been reached.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines he has issued to training and enterprise councils concerning the retention or shredding of copies of tenders and other comparable commercial documents.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training and enterprise councils, as private companies, are required to observe the provisions of the Companies Act 1989 as they relate to the retention and disposal of documents.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the average net number of new businesses started each week between 1 January 1990 and 30 June 1990 as measured by VAT returns.

  Mr. Forth
  I regret that figures for 1990 are not yet available. However, during 1989, the latest period for which figures have been published by my Department, the number of businesses registered for VAT increased by nearly 1,700 a week on average. Early indications from data collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are that there continues to be a substantial surplus of registrations over deregistrations.

  Employees' Rights
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage employees with less than two years' service to pursue their rights under guaranteed payment legislation.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: My Department has issued an explanatory booklet, "Guarantee Payments", which is widely available. There is no two-year qualifying period. All employees who have been continuously employed for one month are entitled to a statutory guarantee payment under the specified conditions unless they are employed for a fixed term not exceeding three months or unless of the specific exceptions in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 applies.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on waiting lists in the Northern regional health authority.
  91
  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand from Northern regional health authority that, in the 12 months to September 1990, the number of patients waiting more than a year for in-patient treatment fell by more than 13 per cent. in the region as a whole.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures announced to fund the waiting list initiative.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 16 January, £35 million will be made available through the waiting list fund in 1991–92 to tackle long waiting times.

  Leicestershire Health Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the state of the health service in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am pleased to announce that since 1979 the number of in-patients treated by Leicestershire health authority has increased by 60 per cent., the number of out-patients has increased by 43 per cent. and the number of day case patients has increased by 65 per cent. Leicestershire health authority has a capital programme for the 1990's which total over £100 million involving developments at Leicester royal infirmary and Glenfield hospital together with the expenditure of £14 million on the complete reprovision of hospital services in Loughborough.

  National Institute for Biological Standards and Research
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the achievements to date in research work by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Research.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since it was founded in 1972, the institute's major role has been the development of international standards for biological medicines, in which it has an international reputation. It has also been in the forefront of biomedical research, which includes AIDS vaccine research and work on improving vaccines against polio and influenza.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have received many constructive responses to consultative papers on this subject from a wide range of organisations and individuals.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's guidelines concerning competitive tendering within the NHS.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I see scope for much wider use of competitive tendering to test and improve the efficiency 92
  and cost-effectiveness of national health service support services. It is primarily for managers at operational level to identify where tendering for services offers the best opportunities for improved value and service to patients.

  Hospital Beds, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds have been closed in Greater London hospitals in the past three years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not routinely collect this information centrally, since bed numbers are not a good indicator of levels of service in the NHS. It is for each health authority to determine the level and mix of health service provision in its area, taking account of local circumstances and the increased resources available to them.

  Physiotherapists, London
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trained physiotherapists there are currently employed by the NHS; and whether he has any plans to increase this number.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest available information for England relates to 30 September 1989 and shows that there were 9,750 (whole-time equivalents) qualified physiotherapists in post. Any further increase in this number will be for health authorities to determine in the light of local circumstances.

  Gulf War Casualties
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions Coventry health authority has made to facilitate treatment of potential victims of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities' plans for dealing with casualties from hostilities in the Gulf involve hospitals throughout the NHS. It is for health authorities to allocate cases to particular hospitals and information on which hospitals will be used is not available centrally.

  Medical and Dental Education
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's financial commitment to postgraduate and continuing medical and dental education.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have an ongoing financial commitment to postgraduate and continuing medical education which we regard as an essential ingredient in the delivery of high standards of patient care. From April 1991 we are making available an additional £5·8 million to assist in the introduction of a system to improve the management of postgraduate and continuing medical education in regions. I announced recently that £46 million has been secured for the development of medical audit in 1991–92. Regions will have to allocate appropriate funds to meet the resource implications of medical audit for postgraduate education.

  Health Authority Managers
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities now share a general manager with another health authority; and what is his policy towards encouraging such an arrangement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally; the appointment of a general manager is a matter for the health authority concerned. Regulations allow an executive member of one authority to be an executive member of a similar type of authority.

  NHS Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate capital expenditure in the national health service in the year 1978–79 and for the latest year for which figures are available, adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Total national health service gross capital expenditure in England in 1978–79 at current (1990–91 prices) was £943 million. Total capital spending this year is expected to be £1,668 million. This figure includes the effects of redefinition of capital expenditure (an additional £112 million). Without taking this into account national health service capital expenditure has risen by 65 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of hearing nurses' appeals against their grading.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on nursing appeals to employing authorities is not collected centrally.

  Junior Doctors' Hours
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the latest progress concerning the reduction of hours worked by junior hospital doctors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 18 December at column 151.

  Elderly and Disabled Persons
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any proposals to amend the statutory duties of local authorities towards elderly and disabled persons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to amend statutory duties of local authorities beyond the changes already set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and the intention to make provision for the registration of small homes.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has as to the comparative cost to the NHS each year as a result of competitive tendering in the catering, laundry and cleaning services as against in-house servicing.
  94
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Total annual savings being achieved as a result of competitive tendering for these three services are estimated to be in the order of £120 million: private contracts account for some 27 per cent. of that total. The management costs of tendering for these services is insignificant against the net savings being achieved.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people over 18 years resident in the London borough of Newham or nearest equivalent area for which figures are available received free dental treatment by qualifying for an AG2 certificate in the years 1986–87 to 1989–90;

  (2) how many people over 18 years of age in England and Wales received free dental treatment by qualifying for an AG2 certificate in the years 1986–87 to 1989–90; and if these figures could be made available for each district health authority area.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  NHS Staff (Pensions)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there have been any recent changes to pension arrangements for national health service staff.

  Mr. Dorrell
  New arrangements for the payment of additional voluntary contributions (AVCs) are being introduced into the national health service (England and Wales) pension scheme from 1 February 1991. The new facility will give members of the scheme more choice about the way in which extra pension benefits, within Inland Revenue limits, can be provided. Those who wish to pay additional pension contributions will now be able to contribute towards a money-purchase AVC arrangement with the Equitable Life Assurance Society. They will be able to choose the type of additional cover they want to buy and the method of investment. AVCs may be used to increase the member's own pension, dependants' pensions or the lump sum payable on death. The member can choose to invest contributions in a with-profits or a unit-linked investment or, by a link with the Woolwich building society, in a deposit account.

  The new scheme will run alongside existing AVC facilities in the NHS pension scheme. The additional choice which staff will now have accords with the Government's continuing commitment to improving the choice individuals have about their pension arrangements and the way their pension contributions are invested.

  Secure Units
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Health Department when the consultation paper on provision of new secure units will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The consultation paper, "The remand of alleged juvenile offenders", issued by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 4 February, contained proposals which call for some increase in the overall number of secure places provided by local authorities. We hope to discuss the implications of these proposals with the local authority associations as soon as possible.

  Nurse Prescribing
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the outcome of the consultation on the report of the advisory group on nurse prescribing; and what proposals he has to introduce a system of limited drug prescribing for qualified nurses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 4 February.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to implement the EC directive on the labelling of tobacco products.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Officials have written today to the major interests concerned to allow them three months to comment on draft regulations to implement this directive. In implementing the directive, I have proposed as far as possible to maintain the existing system for testing tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes. I have also proposed, insofar as the directive allows any flexibility in the matter, to choose those health warnings which seem likely to be most effective in alerting the consumer to the terrible health risks involved in smoking. I have placed a copy of the draft regulations in the Library.

  Children (Grandparents' Access)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will seek to make changes in the law to allow access for grandparents to grandchildren who have been taken into care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Children Act 1989, which will be implemented on 14 October 1991, makes new provisions regarding contact with children who are the subject of a care order. The Act provides that any person who has obtained the leave of the court to do so may apply for an order determining the contact which is to be allowed between the child and that person.

  This provision enables people with whom the child has previously had a close relationship to keep in touch with that child while he is in the care of the local authority. If the grandparent was the beneficiary of a residence order made under section 8 of the Act immediately prior to the care order being made, he will be one of those automatically entitled to reasonable contact.

  Where a child is being looked after by a local authority on a voluntary basis, contact is a matter for agreement between parents, foster parents and the authority. Authorities will have a duty to promote reasonable contact between the child and his relatives—including a grandparent—where this is consistent with the child's welfare.

  Incontinence Pads
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy with regard to health authorities charging for the supply of incontinence pads to residents of private care or nursing homes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities are not empowered to charge for the incontinence pads which they may, at their 96
  discretion, supply to people living in private residential homes. Private nursing homes were specifically excluded from the free supply arrangements promulgated in 1974, since the treatment such homes provide would normally include any necessary services or equipment and the cost would be covered by the fees or charges paid to them by or on behalf of the patients (including those paid by a health authority under contractual arrangements). Under section 7 of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 health authorities may supply such goods to nursing homes for a fee which includes an element of profit. The Department is on the point of initiating a review of arrangements for the supply of incontinence pads to people living in their own homes or in private residential care.

  Embossed Literature Service
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the value of the grant for the embossed literature service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The level of grant aid for the embossed literature service in 1991–92 will be determined in the light of the available resources and competing demands for funds and taking into account the criteria applicable to grants made under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that community health councils keep their full rights to attend health authority meetings and to speak even during confidential parts of such meetings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As members of the public, CHC members and staff have the right under the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 to attend health authority meetings. Whether or not they are asked to speak, or allowed to attend confidential parts of such meetings, has always depended, and will continue to depend, upon the decision of the chairman of the meeting.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which regional or district health authorities in England have employed outside financial consultants to prepare business plans for direct management unit or NHS trust status; in each case which consultants were employed; and what was the cost to each regional or district health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish his Department's estimate of the cash value of the return on capital element of the contract prices to be charged by each NHS trust in the 1991–92 financial year;

  (2) if he will publish the figures used for establishing the external financing limits of each of the NHS trusts;

  (3) what is the planned level of capital spending by each NHS trust in the 1991–92 financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: National health service trusts are free to manage their

  97
  affairs within their external financing limits. It is not appropriate to publish the detailed information underlying the calculations of external financing limits.

  Abortions
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to issue guidance to regional health authorities that abortions should be treated as urgent operations if non-urgent beds have to be cleared to deal with Gulf war casualties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no need for health authorities to prepare for Gulf casualties by emptying beds until significant ground operations begin. The decision as to whether an abortion should be treated as an urgent operation is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctors concerned in each individual case.

  Community Care
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is actively considering removing elements of community care provision from local authority to health authority control.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The respective roles of local and health authorities in the provision of care in the community are as set out in the White Paper "Caring for People", copies of which are available in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Repair Agencies
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future role he plans for housing repair agencies and their relationships with local authorities.

  Mr. Yeo
  On 19 October 1990 my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) announced that the Government would provide a grant of 50 per cent. towards the running costs of approved schemes from 1 April 1991, to be channelled through local housing authorities which would also be responsible for identifying the needs of their areas and for securing the establishment and operation of appropriate schemes.

  List of Non-Metropolitan District Councils (Top 20 in Ranking order of loan Debt per Capita)

  Council

  Rank

  Outstanding Debt £ million

  Population1

  Debt Per Capita

  POL Control

  Nottingham

  1

  423·9

  273,500

  1,550

  NOC

  Harlow

  2

  108·8

  71,300

  1,526

  Labour

  Stevenage

  3

  111·4

  74,000

  1,505

  Labour

  Norwich

  4

  175·6

  117,400

  1,496

  Labour

  Kingston on Hull

  5

  339·8

  245,100

  1,386

  Labour

  Crawley

  6

  115·0

  84,500

  1,361

  Labour

  Middlesbrough

  7

  187·0

  142,700

  1,310

  Labour

  Blackburn

  8

  167·2

  135,700

  1,232

  Labour

  Redditch

  9

  95·3

  78,100

  1,220

  Labour

  Thamesdown

  10

  203·7

  170,200

  1,197

  Labour

  Scunthorpe

  11

  65·7

  59,600

  1,102

  Labour

  Tamworth

  12

  76·0

  69,000

  1,101

  Labour

  Bracknell

  13

  114·2

  104,600

  1,092

  Conservative

  Sedgefield

  14

  93·3

  88,300

  1,057

  Labour

  Portsmouth

  15

  194·1

  184,000

  1,055

  NOC

  Northampton

  16

  193·0

  184,000

  1,049

  Conservative

  98
  He also announced that a central co-ordinating body would be set up to undertake developmental and training work, monitor progress and provide advice to individual schemes; and I am now pleased to be able to announce that, having carefully considered the submissions put to us by various potentially suitable organisations, we have decided to invite Care and Repair Ltd. to take on that role from 1 April this year. My Department is currently discussing the details of a four-year contract with them.

  Bus Subsidies
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the authorities giving subsidies to bus companies with the amounts involved for 1990–91 and the cost to each charge payer.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  NRA Staff
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by profession, the numbers of staff currently employed by the National Rivers Authority with science qualifications.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not held by my Department. I have however asked the chairman of the National Rivers Authority to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Derelict Gas Works
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of derelict sites that were previously used by gas works.

  Mr. Trippier
  Figures for the number of derelict sites that were previously used as gasworks are not available.

  Non-metropolitan Councils
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, in ranking order of loan debt per capita, the top 20 non-metropolitan district councils with their level of debt, their population, and the political party which currently controls them.

  Mr. Key
  The information is as follows:
  99

  Council

  Rank

  Outstanding Debt £ million

  Population 1

  Debt Per Capita

  POL Control

  Hartlepool

  17

  89·8

  88,700

  1,012

  Labour

  Leicester

  18

  278·1

  279,700

  994

  Labour

  Luton

  19

  167·6

  169,900

  986

  Conservative

  Brighton

  20

  139·2

  143,100

  973

  Labour

  (NOC = No Overall Control)

  1 Total resident population at 30 June 1989 (OPCS estimate)

  Recycling
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), of 19 December 1990,Official Report, column 167, what criteria he uses to assess whether sites for recycling are environmentally unviable; and what assessment he has made of the environmental viability of the waste disposal site under construction behind Greenford station.

  Mr. Baldry
  The assessment of the environmental impact of any new recycling or waste transfer and disposal facility is a matter for the local planning and waste regulation authorities, which, in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, are the London borough of Ealing and the London Waste Regulation Authority. It would be wrong to comment on the merits of any application which could come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on appeal.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many jobs have been created in the London Docklands development corporation since 1981; and how much each job has cost through the allocation of public money;

  (2) what is the number of jobs created in the London Docklands development corporation; and how many are (a) additional jobs and (b) transfers.

  Mr. Portillo
  About 45,000 jobs have come to London docklands since 1981, of which an estimated 13,500 are in companies which have set up in the urban development area and some 31,500 in companies that have relocated there.

  It is impossible to distinguish between expenditure leading to job creation and that leading to other regeneration benefits.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number and names of landfill sites in England and their approximate acreage.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available centrally and it would be too expensive to collect.

  Domestic Water Supplies
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department has given to water companies about adding chlorine or other disinfectants to domestic water supplies during the present crisis in the Gulf.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  Departmental Architects
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many architects and support staff have been employed(a) full and (b) part time, in each of the last five years, in his Department; and what has been the cost to the Exchequer in each year.

  0Mr. Heseltine
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Wetlands
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when deciding the locations for dumping of dredgings what consideration is taken of whether a site meets the criteria for designation as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar convention and as a special protection area under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds and is therefore of greater than local importance.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Nature Conservancy Council recommends to the Government sites which meet the criteria for designation as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention and special protection areas under the EEC birds directive. The factors which are taken into account when considering any development proposal affecting a Ramsar site or special protection area, or site identified as being a potential special protection area, are set out in DOE circular 27/87.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will call in for his own consideration the proposal made by the Port of London authority to dump dredgings on Cliffe marshes, Kent.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 4 February at column 41 to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).

  Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the recommendations of the report of the School Sport Forum, "Sport and Young People: Partnership and Action," which required action by his Department; what action has been taken to implement each recommendation; what are the reasons where the recommendation has not been implemented in full; and what further action his Department intends to take.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.

  Agencies (Complaints)
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy, when dealing with letters of complaint about agencies within his responsibility, on passing the letters to the relevant agency for reply;
  101
  and how this policy was put into effect in respect of the letter of 10 December 1990 from the chairman of Coventry's environmental services committee.

  Mr. Trippier
  The policy in regard to dealing with complaints about an executive agency is decided on its merits when drawing up the particular agency's policy and resources framework document. Generally we encourage direct contact with the chief executive on matters of day-to-day agency operation, but Ministers will deal with cases raising questions of policy direction or resource allocation and where a Member of Parliament specifically seeks a reply.

  However, the policy is not relevant to the handling of the letter of 10 December 1990 since HM inspectorate of pollution is not yet an agency.

  Homefire Plant, Coventry
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations have been made to his Department about the Homefire plant in Coventry by local residents and Coventry city council; and what response has been made;

  (2) whether he will visit the Homefire plant in Coventry to discuss pollution and its regulation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Homefire plant at Coventry is regulated by HM inspectorate of pollution and is regularly visited by one of its inspectors. I therefore have no plans to visit the plant.

  The inspectorate is aware that emissions from the plant are a problem and has issued an improvement notice requiring improvements to be made by 30 June 1991.

  A number of representations have been received, in particular that from Coventry city council on HMIP's recent extension to June 1991 of the deadline for compliance with the improvement notice. Detailed replies have been given, for example on the need to use equipment not readily available as off-the-shelf units and on the impact of a decision to abandon a proposal to utilise the chosen abatement system for electricity generation following changes in the electricity industry.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an internal inquiry into the handling of the case of the Homefire plant, Coventry by the Central Pollution Agency.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the allowance for losses in collection of non-domestic rates, referred to in note 1 of the letter referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) of 24 January,Official Report, column 267, was calculated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The allowances for losses in collection of non-domestic rates for 1990–91 were those used in the calculation of each authority's provisional contribution to the non-domestic rates pool. They were calculated as an appropriate percentage of net yield. These percentages were:
  102

  Per cent.

  Inner London boroughs and City of London

  0·45

  Outer London boroughs and Metropolitan districts

  0·40

  Shire districts and the Isles of Scilly

  0·20

  These percentages were agreed with the local authority associations and were based on an analysis of the proportion of total rate yield lost to absconders and bankruptcies, using data provided by CIPFA, over the period 1986–87 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has as to which councils have sent poll tax demands to troops in the Gulf; whether any of those demands have subsequently been withdrawn; what further advice he has offered to the local authorities concerned; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many authorities have sought to enforce payment of outstanding poll tax against armed forces personnel and reservists serving in the Gulf prior to his advice issued to local authorities on 5 November 1990, and how many after; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Information on actions taken by authorities in such cases is not held centrally. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 29 January, we propose shortly to issue further guidance to take account of developments since November.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory provisions relating to the power of local authorities and/or community charge registrars to exempt from the poll tax those serving in British forces in the Gulf, or civilians who are supporting the military directly, whose main residence is in Britain; and whether he has any plans to compensate authorities which make such exemptions.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: The Government's policy is that no one posted to the Gulf should as a result be worse off financially. However, there are no specific powers to exempt these people from the community charge. Section 2 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 states that people will be liable to the personal community charge of the charging authority in whose area they have their sole or main residence. It is for community charge registration officers (CCROs), subject to appeal to the valuation and community charge tribunal, to determine whether a person who is posted to the Gulf has changed his sole or main residence and consequently whether his liability for the personal community charge should cease. We issued advice to community charge registration officers on 5 November 1990 on the treatment of such cases, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 29 January, we propose shortly to issue further guidance to take account of developments since November.

  As for the financial consequences for authorities, the existing arrangements should be adequate to allow for the temporary absence of service men and the normal rotation of units. We are considering representations from a number of authorities which have been particularly affected in the present circumstances because of the large numbers of service men normally resident in their area.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a list of the
  103
  names of those local authorities which are refusing to use their discretion to give service men and service women on active service in the middle east exemption from the community charge for the period of that service.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: It is for every community charge registration officer (CCRO), subject to appeal to the valuation and community charge tribunal, to determine whether a service man, including an auxiliary or territorial, or a civilian who is posted to the Gulf has changed his sole or main residence and consequently whether his liability for the personal community charge should cease. Information on the decisions made by community charge registration officers in these cases is not held centrally.

  Refuse-derived Fuel
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if, in preparation of the Environment Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991, he will consider making refuse-derived fuel combustion a schedule B process in any boiler up to 50 MW;

  (2) what consideration he has given, or intends to give, to the categorisation of refuse-derived fuel combustion as a schedule B process in boilers using (a) 0 to 3 tonnes per hour and (b) 3 to 6 tonnes per hour.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 25 January at column 329.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside on 21 January,Official Report, column 87, he will list, specifically and separately, the types of derogation his Department currently intends to seek once the power to derogate for plant burning refuse-derived fuel has been included in regulations; and if it is his intention to include specific derogations.

  Mr. Baldry
  As I said in my reply on 21 January at column 87, regulations to implement the EC directive on municipal waste incineration will include powers to derogate for plant burning refuse-derived fuels which will be complemented by specific guidance from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. These are currently being considered and will be subject to consultation in due course.

  Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the recommendations of the Minister for Sport's review group on sport and active recreation provision in the inner cities which required action by his Department setting out what action has been taken to implement each recommendation, and the reasons where they have not been implemented in full; and what further action he intends to take.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.

  Environmental Protection Regulations
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has concluded the preparation of the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991.

  Mr. Trippier
  Consultations on the draft regulations are now complete. My right hon. Friend will be making the regulations, taking into account the outcome of the consultations as soon as possible.

  Essex Structure Plan
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decision in respect of the Essex structure plan first alteration submitted to him in July 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We expect to issue the final approval of the first alteration to the Essex structure plan in March this year.

  Union Flag
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislative proposals to prevent all local authorities from banning the display of the union flag on local authority property, vehicles or businesses that operate under the issuing of a licence from a local authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No: a local authority is answerable to its electors for such decisions. I am sure that the electors will take note of decisions of which they disapprove.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the results of the most recent survey of right-to-buy performance in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The most recent survey of London's right-to-buy performance was carried out in September last year. The tables show that boroughs had failed to issue 4,356 notices (RTB2 and section 125) within the statutory time limits. This compares with a figure of 13,280 for September 1989.

  In addition to this exercise for the whole of London, the Department has been receiving monthly reports from 12 boroughs which have been regularly monitored because their performance has, in the past, been exceptionally poor. Delays in notices in these boroughs have fallen by more than 75 per cent. since March 1989, but two boroughs, Lambeth and Hackney, now account for nearly two thirds of the 3,712 cases outstanding. Indeed, these two boroughs account for well over one half of all cases outstanding in London.

  During the course of the September survey my Department also collected information on the working of the tenants' sanction measures introduced in March 1989, which allow tenants to have rent counted as advance payment towards the purchase of their home if sale is delayed. The reports of the use of sanctions show that 15 boroughs received no notices of delay, but that the sanctions are being used extensively in boroughs where the number of outstanding cases is high. In September 1990,

  105
  202 notices were served, including 104 in Lambeth. There were 626 outstanding notices at the end of that month, 393 of which were in Hackney.

  I am pleased to see that fewer tenants are now experiencing unjustified delays when they apply to buy their homes. Because of the significant improvements in most monitored boroughs I have decided that monthly monitoring should provisionally cease for Brent, Camden, Haringey, Hounslow, Islington, Lewisham, Newham, Richmond, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. Monitoring will continue for Lambeth and Hackney and I shall also continue to look closely at the effect of tenants' sanctions on the performance of these boroughs.

  Right to buy monitoring

  Table A—RTB2 and section 125 defaults (total)

  March 1989

  September 1989

  March 1990

  September 1990

  Monitored boroughs

  Brent

  1,929

  1,263

  464

  172

  Camden

  2,616

  674

  352

  192

  Hackney

  2,370

  2,043

  1,064

  708

  Haringey

  254

  128

  133

  40

  Hounslow

  933

  909

  419

  92

  Islington

  501

  293

  244

  167

  Lambeth

  2,067

  2,984

  3,124

  1,739

  Lewisham

  1,293

  526

  173

  106

  Newham

  1,425

  720

  3249

  146

  Richmond

  n/a

  35

  35

  49

  Southwark

  2,069

  1,462

  564

  295

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  84

  6

  TOTAL

  15,457

  11,037

  6,905

  3,712

  Non-monitored boroughs

  City

  —

  5

  —

  1

  Barking

  —

  11

  —

  7

  Barnet

  —

  13

  —

  9

  Bexley2

  —

  20

  —

  6

  Bromley

  —

  10

  —

  4

  Croydon

  —

  0

  —

  1

  Ealing1

  —

  391

  —

  31

  Enfield

  —

  52

  —

  49

  Greenwich

  —

  187

  —

  163

  Hammersmith and Fulham1

  —

  474

  —

  91

  Harrow

  —

  0

  —

  31

  Havering

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Hillingdon1

  —

  359

  —

  98

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  83

  —

  12

  Kingston

  —

  19

  —

  11

  Merton

  —

  n/a

  —

  0

  Redbridge2

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Sutton

  —

  141

  —

  19

  Waltham Forest1

  —

  429

  —

  86

  Wandsworth

  —

  4

  —

  0

  Westminster

  —

  45

  —

  25

  TOTAL

  —

  2,243

  —

  644

  GRAND TOTAL

  —

  13,280

  —

  4,356

  Notes:

  (i) RTB2s are notices confirming or denying the tenants' Right to Buy. Section 125s are notices providing the price at which the property can be purchased.

  (ii) "Default" means that the local authority has failed in its statutory duty to provide the relevant notice within the statutory period allowed.

  (iii) Data for monitored boroughs has been collected on monthly basis since March 1989. For the purposes of this table, only data for March and September months has been shown. Data for non-monitored boroughs is collected each September.

  1 Ealing, Hammersmith, Hillingdon, Waltham Forest were temporarily monitored from February 1990 to April 1990.

  2 Bexley and Redbridge sell properties under the General Consent rather than the Right to Buy legislation.

  3 Estimate.

  106
  The scope of monitoring will be reviewed in September when the Department will again collect statistics for all London boroughs. I shall be looking carefully to see whether recent improvements in performance are being sustained, and I will if necessary consider re-introducing monthly monitoring for boroughs whose performance slips.

  In the meantime, I urge Lambeth and Hackney to take the measures that are urgently needed to improve their deplorable performance on right to buy, to safeguard the rights of their tenants and to avoid the costs that they will increasingly incur under tenant sanction provisions.
  107

  Table B—RTB6 notices received and outstanding for September 1990

  IN

  O/S

  Monitored Borough

  Brent

  1

  0

  Camden

  8

  39

  Hackney

  20

  202

  Haringey

  3

  7

  Hounslow

  0

  25

  Islington

  15

  22

  Lambeth

  65

  n/a

  Lewisham

  13

  87

  Newham

  3

  3

  Richmond

  1

  0

  Southwark

  14

  10

  Tower Hamlets

  2

  0

  Totals

  145

  395

  Non-Monitored Boroughs

  City

  0

  0

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  0

  0

  Bexley

  0

  0

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  Enfield

  0

  0

  Ealing

  2

  0

  Greenwich

  9

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3

  0

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  Kingston

  2

  0

  Merton

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  n/a

  n/a

  Sutton

  3

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  Westminster

  0

  0

  Total

  19

  0

  Grand Total

  169

  395

  Notes:

  (i) This table shows the number of RTB6 notices received (IN) during the month and of those outstanding (O/S) at the end of each month.

  Table C—RTB8 notices received and outstanding for September 1990

  IN

  O/S

  Monitored boroughs

  Brent

  0

  0

  Camden

  1

  5

  Hackney

  9

  191

  Haringey

  1

  0

  Hounslow

  0

  7

  Islington

  1

  3

  Lambeth

  39

  n.a.

  Lewisham

  0

  20

  Newham

  1

  2

  Richmond

  0

  0

  Southwark

  5

  3

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  Totals

  57

  231

  Non-monitored boroughs

  City

  0

  0

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  0

  0

  Bexley

  0

  0

  Bromley

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  Enfield

  0

  0

  108

  IN

  O/S

  Ealing

  2

  2

  Greenwich

  1

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  Kingston

  0

  0

  Merton

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Sutton

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  Westminster

  0

  0

  Total

  3

  3

  Grand total

  62

  236

  n.a. Not available.

  Note:

  (i) This table shows the number of RTB8 notices received (IN) during the month and of those outstanding (0/S) at the end of each month.

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement as to the connection of Ministers in his Department with Heveningham hall;

  (2) on what dates he or his predecessor met Mr. Abdul Al-Ghazzi; in what circumstances; and what matters were discussed;

  (3) when he or his predecessor held discussions on matters relating to Heveningham hall with Mr. Abdul Al-Ghazzi.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 4 February]: My right hon. Friend, when he was Secretary of State previously, met Mr. Al-Ghazzi towards the end of October 1980 to discuss the terms of the sale of Heveningham hall. With that one exception, no Ministers of the Department of the Environment, past or present, have since then had any dealings with Mr. Al-Ghazzi in their capacity as Ministers, other than by correspondence. At various times officials of the Department and of English Heritage have visited Heveningham hall, and had correspondence and discussions with Mr. Al-Ghazzi's representatives about the progress of the restoration work.

WALES

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of cases of BSE-affected cattle in the years ending 31 December 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 for(a) Dyfed, (b) Wales and (c) Britain.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The numbers of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Dyfed, Wales, and Great Britain during each of the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 were as set out in the following table. The 1990 figures are provisional.

  Dyfed

  Wales

  Great Britain

  1986

  0

  0

  2

  1987

  8

  8

  132

  1988

  64

  131

  2,185

  109

  Dyfed

  Wales

  Great Britain

  1989

  212

  459

  7,136

  1990

  522

  976

  12,817

  Total1

  806

  1,574

  22,272

  1 Number of cases at 31 December 1990.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report, for each of the districts of Wales, those communities which will not receive any benefit under the community charge reduction scheme in 1991–92.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is contained in the following tables:

  Local Government Finance

    COMMUNITY CHARGE REDUCTION SCHEME—1991–92 COMMUNITIES NOT BENEFITING
    Aberconwy

    Betwys-y-Coed

    Conwy

    Henryd

    Llandudno

    Llansanffraid Glan Conwy

    Penmaenmawr

    Alyn and Dee side

    Broughton and Bretton

    Hawarden

    Higher Kinnerton

    Penyffordd

    Arfon

    All communities benefit

    Blaenau Gwent

    Llanelli

    Brecknock

    Brecon

    Bronllys

    Cilmery

    Crickhowell

    Gwernyfed

    Hay

    Llanddew

    Llanfihangel Cwmdu with Bwlch

    Llangattock

    Llangors

    Llangynidr

    Llanigon

    Talgarth

    The Vale of Grwyney

    Cardiff

    Castle

    Cyncoed

    Heath

    Lisvane

    Llandaf

    Llanishen

    Pentwyn

    Radyr

    Rhiwbina

    Roath

    St. Fagans

    St. Mellons

    Whitchurch

    Carmarthen

    Carmarthen

    Llangunnor

    Pendine

    Ceredigion

    Aberaeron

    Aberystwyth

    Borth Cardigan

    110

    Faenor

    Geneu'r Glyn

    Lampeter

    Llanbadarn Fawr

    Llanfarian

    Llangynfelyn

    Llanilar

    Llanllwchaiarn

    Llanrhystyd

    Melindwr

    New Quay

    Tirymynach

    Trefeurig

    Y Ferwig

    Ysgubor-y-coed

    Colwyn

    Abergele

    Cefnmeiriadog

    Kimmel Bay and Towyn

    Llanddulas and Rhyd-y-Foel

    Old Colwyn

    Rhos-on-Sea

    Cynon Valley

    Llwydcoed

    Delyn

    Argoed

    Gwernaffield

    Gwernymynydd

    Mold

    Dinefwr

    All communities benefit

    Dwyfor

    Criccieth

    Llanbedrog

    Llanengan

    Porthmadog

    Glyndwr

    Llanbedr Dyffrn Clwyd

    Islwyn

    All communities benefit

    Llanelli

    All communities benefit

    Lliw Valley

    Llangyfelach

    Pont-Lliw

    Meirionnyd

    Aberdovey

    Arthog

    Bala

    Barmouth

    Bryn-Crug

    Dyffryn Ardudwy

    Harlech

    Llanelltyd

    Llanfair

    Llangelynin

    Pennal

    Tywyn

    Merthyr Tydfil

    Cyfarthfa

    Gurnos

    Monmouth

    Abergavenny

    Caldicot

    Chepstow

    Crucorney

    Devauden

    Goetre Fawr

    Grosmont

    Gwehelog Fawr

    Llanarth

    Llanbadoc

    Llanfoist Fawr

    Llangattock Vibon Avel

    111

    Llangwm

    Llangybi

    Llanhennock

    Llanover

    Llantilio Pertholey

    Llantrisant Fawr

    Magor with Undy

    Mathern

    Mitchel Troy

    Monmouth

    Portskewett

    Raglan

    St. Arvans

    Shirenewton

    Trellech United

    Usk

    Montgomeryshire

    Carreghofa

    Guilsfield

    Llandrinio

    Llandysilio

    Llanidloes

    Machynlleth

    Montgomery

    Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn

    Trewern

    Welshpool

    Neath

    Blaenhonddan

    Newport

    Allt-yr-yn

    Always

    Beechwood

    Caerleon

    Gaer

    Graig

    Langstone

    Llanvaches

    Llanwern

    Marshfield

    Michaelstone-y-Fedw

    Penhow

    Rogerstone

    Shaftesbury

    Tredegar Park

    Ogwr

    Brackla

    Coity Higher

    Coychurch Lower

    Ewenny

    Merthyr Mawr

    Porthcawl

    St. Bride's Major

    Wick

    Port Talbot

    Baglan Bay (no domestic chargepayers)

    Margam Moors (no domestic chargepayers)

    otherwise all communities benefit

    Preseli Pembrokeshire

    Haverfordwest

    Herbrandston

    Merlin's Bridge

    Milford

    Nolton and Roch

    Rudbaxton

    The Havens

    Uzmaston and Boulston

    Radnorshire

    Aberedw

    Clyro

    Knighton

    Llanbadarn Fawr

    112

    Llandrindod Wells

    Llanyre

    New Radnor

    Presteigne

    Rhayader

    Rhondda

    All communities benefit

    Rhuddlan

    Rhuddlan

    Rhymney Valley

    Caerphilly

    Penyrheol

    Rudry

    Van

    South Pembrokeshire

    Amroth

    Cosheston

    East Williamston

    Lamphey

    Manorbier

    Narberth

    Pembroke

    Penally

    St. Florence

    St. Mary Out Liberty

    Saundersfoot

    Tenby

    Swansea

    Bishopston

    Dunvant

    Ilston

    Killay

    Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton

    Mumbles

    Mynyddbach

    Penderry

    Pennard

    Penrice

    Port Eynon

    Reynoldston

    Rhossili

    Sketty

    Uplands

    Upper Killay

    Taff-Ely

    Llantrisant

    Llantwit Fardre

    Pentyrch

    Pont-y-clun

    Taffs Well

    Torfaen

    Croesyceiliog

    Fairwater

    Llantarnam

    Llanyrafon

    New Inn

    Ponthir

    Upper Cwmbran

    Vale of Glamorgan

    Barry

    Colwinston

    Cowbridge with Llanblethian

    Dinas Powys

    Llancarfan

    Llandough

    Llandow

    Llanfair

    Llangan

    Llan-maes

    Michaelston

    Penarth

    Pendoylan

    Penllyn

    Peterston-super-Ely

    113

    Rhoose

    St. Georges-super-Ely

    St. Nicholas and Bonvilston

    Sully

    Welsh St. Donats

    Wenvoe

    Wrexham Maelor

    Acton

    Bangor Is-y-Coed

    Gresford

    Sesswick

    Ynys Môn

    Beaumaris

    Cwm Cadnant

    Llanddaniel Fab

    Llaneugrad

    Llanfaelog

    Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf

    Menai Bridge

    Moelfre

    Rhoscolyn

    Trearddur

    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will outline the method of calculation which has led to the specific figures for transitional relief for communities in Wales listed with his statement and press release of 17 January.

    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 4 February 1991, column 23.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each district council in Wales the estimates for expenditure on community charge benefits, rent allowance and internal drainage board levies which have been aggregated in table 1·5 column (1), page 11 of "The Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 2)".

    Mr. Nicholas Bennett
    The Welsh revenue support grant formulae do not form a basis for calculating notional allocations of standard spending assessments for individual expenditure categories.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the numerical calculations involved in establishing the entitlement of Mid Glamorgan county council and Ogwr borough council to revenue support grant, with particular reference to the formula S—N—(P x C) and the means by which the value of S, N, P and C are calculated.

    Mr. David Hunt
    The components of the formula for the calculation of an authority's entitlement to revenue support grant are as follows:S = the standard spending assessment for the authority. The method for its calculation is described in appendix 1 of the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 2).
    N = the authority's share of the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating account, calculated in accordance with paragraph 12 of schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
    P = the population of the authority, calculated according to appendix 2 of the aforementioned distribution report.
    C = the authority's community charge for standard spending (CCSS), calculated as described in paragraph 8 of the distribution report.

    The requested values (rounded to the nearest thousand) are:
    114

    Mid Glamorgan County Council

    Ogwr Borough Council

    S (£000)

    363,783

    17,218

    N (£000)

    81,758

    4,130

    P x C (£000)

    77,341

    3,882

    P

    407,936

    103,326

    C (£)

    189·59

    37·57

    Revenue support grant [S-N-(P x C)] (£000)

    204,684

    9,206

  Fishguard Harbour
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans there are for developments of Fishguard, Pembrokeshire harbour within the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Responsibility for developing Fishguard harbour rests with its owners, Sealink (UK) Ltd.

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority concerning the construction of new neighbourhood hospitals.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Since the authority published its draft strategic plan, no representations have been received from the chairman of the authority.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what policy considerations he will apply to his decision on South Glamorgan health authority's proposal to close St. David's, Glanely, and the children's ear, nose and throat hospitals;

  (2) when he expects to make a statement on the proposed hospital closures programme of South Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 4 February 1991, column 21.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which area health authorities in Wales have employed outside financial consultants to prepare business plans for direct management unit or NHS trust status; in each case which consultants were employed; and what was the cost to each area health authority.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available centrally.

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had in the past six months with Mr. Roger Helliwell, chairman of the board of the South Glamorgan TEC.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Several.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will increase the funding of Welsh higher education colleges to bring them up to parity with funding provision per student for English and Scottish colleges of higher education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Following their incorporation on 1 April 1992 the funding of the Welsh institutions of higher education will be determined by my right hon. Friend as part of the annual public expenditure round.

  School Visits
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) high schools, (b) primary schools and (c) infants schools he visited in Wales in 1990.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  During 1990 I visited one high school, three county secondary schools, six county primary schools and one special school and my right hon. Friend visited one high school.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Detainees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what deadline has been fixed for the ending of the holding of persons aged 15 or 16 years being held in adult prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No deadline has been set. The Government's proposals for reforming the arrangements for the remand of juveniles aged 15 and 16 are set out in the consultation paper which was published on 4 February. Under these proposals, prison custody for juveniles would be ended when sufficient local authority secure accommodation was available. A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library.

  Abandonment of Animals Act 1960
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been for each of the last five years under the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Prosecutions under the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960

  Number

  1985

  83

  1986

  59

  1987

  62

  1988

  44

  1989

  51

  Queensferry Fire Station
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will visit Queensferry fire station.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has advised electoral registration officers on the practice of inspecting the community charge register and making copies of information contained in a community charge register; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has advised electoral registration officers as to whether (a) they can carry out independent processing of community charge data held by a community charge registration officer or (b) they can request community charge registration officers to carry out such processing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Guidance to electoral registration officers on the effective use of their statutory right of access to the community charges register was included in a Home Office circular issued on 10 August 1990 (RPA 347), a copy of which is in the Library. The guidance included advice on the processing of data and the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. Electoral registration officers have no power to request a copy of the community charges register, or to ask community charge registration officers to process data on their behalf.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations underlay the setting of penalties for non-completion of(a) electoral registration forms and (b) community charge registration forms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The penalty for failing to comply with a request from an electoral registration officer for information required in connection with his duties was first established under the Representation of the People Act 1918. Parliament considered that the information was of such importance to the electoral process that refusal to provide it should be treated as a criminal offence. Community charge legislation is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I understand that the purpose of empowering community charge registration officers to impose penalties is to give them a sanction with which to enforce the legal requirement on individuals to support information for registration purposes.

  Nationality Office, Liverpool
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the direct line for hon. Members' inquiries is to be established at the Liverpool nationality office;

  (2) what plans he has to establish a direct line at the Liverpool nationality office for hon. Members' inquiries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The provision of telephone facilities in the nationality office in Liverpool is under review. Inquiries may continue to be pursued through the telephone number in Lunar house already announced.

  Asylum
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will provide a breakdown of statistics on the granting of asylum to persons in relation to gender, age, family structure and residence.
  117
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 31 January 1991]: The available information for 1989 is given in the following table. Reliable information for 1990 is not yet available.

  Persons1 recognised as refugees2 in the United Kingdom in 1989, by age of principal applicant and associated dependants

  Principal applicants

  Associated dependants3

  Age of principal applicant (years)

  0–14

  10

  *

  15–19

  185

  5

  20–24

  525

  55

  25–29

  615

  210

  30–34

  345

  250

  35–39

  235

  275

  40–44

  110

  150

  45–49

  65

  90

  50–54

  35

  20

  55–59

  30

  25

  60–64

  15

  5

  65 and over

  15

  *

  Information not available

  20

  15

  Total

  2,210

  1,100

  1 Provisional figures, rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = less than 3.

  2 Figures exclude South East Asian refugees.

  3 Tabulated by age of the principal applicant. Figures include dependants who applied with the principal applicant, and those who arrived subsequently but before the principal application was decided.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  PAYE
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it costs to send out(a) the pay-as-you-earn annual notice of coding, form P2(T), in January of each year for the following year and (b) the subsequent form after the budget where there are changes in personal allowances.

  Mr. Maude
  The last year for which figures are available is 1990. The cost of sending out the annual coding notices in January 1990 was £1,218,745 and the cost of sending out revised notices following the 1990 budget was £672,382.

  Export Guarantees Committee
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current membership of the Export Guarantees Committee.

  Mr. Maples
  The committee is chaired by the Treasury with representatives from the Export Credit Guarantees Department, Bank of England, Department of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Defence, Foreign Office and the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of occasions for each year since 1980 when the Export Guarantees Committee was asked to consider extra cover because community limits on cover had been reached.

  Mr. Maples
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  1981

  8

  1982

  14

  1983

  14

  118

  Number

  1984

  14

  1985

  11

  1986

  5

  1987

  7

  1988

  5

  1989

  4

  1990

  1

  Misdeclaration Penalties
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will supply for each of the last three years the breakdown in penalties for serious misdeclaration penalties under value added tax regulations in the following table(a) under £5,000, (b) under £10,000, (c) under £20,000, (d) under £50,000, (e) under £100,000, (f) under £500,000, (g) under £1 million and (h) over £1 million and in each band the total sum thus levied.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: Serious misdeclaration penalty has been in force only since 1 April 1990 and information on penalties imposed will be published after the end of the financial year, when more data will be available.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many serious misdeclaration penalties under value added tax regulations have related to the profits or turnover of the business concerned in each of the last three years; and what percentage that was of the total of such cases.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 4 February 1991]: Liability to serious misdeclaration penalty can arise where large misdeclarations are made on VAT returns. Such misdeclarations encompass a range of accounting errors and information is not available to identify how many of the penalties imposed have related to the profits or turnover of the business concerned.

  The Gulf (Cash Contributions)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the cash commitments pledged by the Governments of Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Denmark and Holland respectively towards the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are not aware of all cash commitments being made by our European partners to help offset the costs of the Gulf conflict, but notable among them is a German contribution of DM 15·6 billion (which includes DM 800 million, or approximately £275 million, to the United Kingdom).

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the cash commitments pledged by the Government of Japan towards the cost of the Gulf conflict, expressed in pounds sterling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  We much appreciate the Japanese Government's contributions to the international effort to achieve the liberation of Kuwait. These amount to $11 billion for the

  119
  multinational forces, $2 billion for economic assistance to Jordan, Egypt and Turkey, and $22 million for humanitarian assistance. In sterling (£1 = $1·90), these figures are £5·79 billion, £1·05 billion, and £11·58 million respectively.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statues
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the process whereby decisions are made as to the persons to be honoured by the erection of statues on plinths in the Members' Lobby.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The forum for considering such matters is the Advisory Committee on Works of Art in the House of Commons. Its terms of reference are"to advise Mr. Speaker and the Secretary of State for the Environment on matters relating to Works of Art in the House of Commons area of the Palace of Westminster".

  The Committee receives proposals from a wide range of sources, including hon. Members.

  Film Makers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what facilities are made available to film makers in the House.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Serjeant at Arms advises and assists applicants within the regulations for photography and filming as approved by the Services Committee; if the hon. Member has a specific matter to raise, he may wish to write to me.

  Tuna
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has taken any steps to ensure tuna served in House of Commons restaurants has been caught by methods that are not harmful to dolphins and other marine life.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Refreshment Department purchases only canned tuna fish products which derive from skipjack tuna which, it is understood, do not swim with dolphins, and which are caught in a manner unlikely to endanger other marine life. The Refreshment Department is also keeping itself informed of developments in the marketing of "dolphin-safe" canned tuna fish. Its buying policy makes it impracticable to purchase foodstuffs other than from a wholesaler.

  Parliamentary Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to the debate of 31 January, whether he is yet in a position to publish the final text of his reference to the Top Salaries Review Body concerning hon. Members' pensions and the resettlement grant.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have now written to the chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body as follows:"At the conclusion of the debate on Parliamentary Pensions held on 17 January 1990 my predecessor said that he would examine what Hon. Members had said with a view to framing a future reference to the TSRB on Parliamentary pensions. He subsequently held discussions with the Trustees
  120
  of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme and others on both the current shape of the scheme and the implementation of the recommendations made in the review body's last report (the 26th). You will have seen that I introduced a Bill to enact those recommendations and other matters this session and the Second Reading took place on 31 January. Because of acute Parliamentary concern about the state of the Fund, we have taken the unusual step of making some changes to the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF), particularly on widows' benefit, without consulting you. Nonetheless, a number of issues remain on which we would welcome your guidance.
  As debates in the House have made clear, the principal issue on which we need your advice is the question of the so called "balance of contributions", that is the balance between the Exchequer and Member contributions.
  The PCPF is a final salary scheme with the Member contribution determined on the basis necessary to fund benefits over the long term, leaving aside surpluses and deficits. Under section 3 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987, the Government Actuary's Department (GAD), on the basis of the cost of known benefits, estimates the total contributions necessary to fund it in the long term (the total standard contribution). Since the Member contribution is fixed this yields the Exchequer contribution as a residual. Taking account of the performance of the Fund, the GAD then adjusts the Exchequer contribution to produce the rate actually paid. The effect is that the Exchequer funds deficits but, where there is a surplus, enjoys a contributions holiday. The financing system is in other words symmetrical.
  The Trustees of the PCPF, amongst others, take the view that the character of the scheme in which the Exchequer makes contributions in this way—taking the benefit of surpluses and making good any deficits—should be changed. Their preference would be for a system which held a fixed relationship between the Exchequer and Member contribution-say in the ratio of 5:3 or 60:40. To match the current system, such a system would need to be symmetrical with regard to both surpluses and deficits, implying that the Member and Exchequer contributions would move up or down together according to the state of the Fund.
  We would therefore welcome your views on the short and long term financing arrangements of the scheme and in particular what role the GAD should play. I intend that your report be debated and that the eventual government decisions on it should establish a definitive position on this issue for some considerable time to come.
  On scheme benefits, as I have mentioned, we have decided to improve widows' and widowers' pensions from half rate to ⅝th rate in response to the Trustees' request for an increase to ⅔rds, in the light of the debate in the House on 17 January 1990. In consultation with the Trustees the Government concluded that this was the appropriate response to Members' immediate concerns over the surplus in the Fund and the level of Exchequer contributions. This should not influence you in determining the Government's policy towards the financing of the Fund nor to what we consider the proper use of surpluses, generally. It was a specific action to meet a specific need. The Trustees have accepted this although they have made clear that a two thirds widows pension remains their objective. I have made it clear that—at any rate on the present system for financing the Scheme—when there is no longer any surplus in the Fund Members' contributions would have to rise to meet the cost of this new level of benefit and any other improvements in benefits which might subsequently be recommended and accepted.
  During the debates on 17 January 1990 and 31 January 1991 Members also raised the question of the accrual rate. You last looked at this in 1983 when you recommended an improvement in the accrual rate from 1/60ths to 1/50ths. I would be grateful for your views on whether a further improvement is justified and if so on the implications for contributions.
  I ought also to record some feeling among the Trustees and other Members that you should take account of experience in other Parliamentary schemes, both Commonwealth and European. Given the timescale, I made clear to the House on 31 January that full coverage of this aspect might well need to await a separate, subsequent Report.

  121
  Finally, as you will see from the debate on 31 January, there is a considerable strength of feeling in the House that the arrangements for the Resettlement Grant and in particular the cut off at age 65, should be looked at again. I recognise, of course, that you examined this matter in your 26th Report, but the Government must obviously take very seriously an expression of such widespread concern from all sides of the House that the arguments should be re-examined. A particular point highlighted in the debate on 31 January is the unique circumstances which determine the precise timing of the end of a Parliament and therefore, for some Members, the end of a Parliamentary career. The Trustees have asked that the TSRB examine this matter seriously, with an open mind and in a way which ensures that the arguments can be put before you clearly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. I have assured them, and the House, that the Government will seek your views on that basis.
  In view of the extent of concern in the House on this matter, I would be most grateful if you could report on it separately by the middle of April, so that the Government's response can be equally prompt.
  As to the balance of contributions and other matters, I would like to consider and debate your report as soon as is practically possible so that any necessary changes can be implemented speedily. (As you will see, the Bill includes a power to make such changes by secondary legislation). So it would be of great assistance if you could report on these matters as soon as possible after your separate report on the Resettlement Grant.
  I would like to conclude by thanking the Review Body for its last report under the chairmanship of Lord Plowden and thank you in advance for agreeing to examine these complex matters. The Trustees of the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme will join me, I am sure, when I say that we are fortunate to being able to call on the Review Body's objectivity in assisting our consideration of these difficult issues."

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Calves
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a marking requirement in order to ensure that the ban on selling calves more than twice in any 28-day period, coming into force on 1 March, can be properly enforced.

  Mr. Maclean
  The order in question includes a requirement to retain records of identification numbers, which are already required to be marked on calves under separate legislation. I believe that this system, which follows recommendations from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, will prove a satisfactory means of enforcement.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Members' Insurance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what changes have been made to the insurance arrangements for hon. Members.

  Mr. Beith
  The cover afforded by the Members Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy in respect of certain of its provisions is directly related to Members' salary. Generally, these items are death benefit for Members, and permanent total disablement benefit for all persons insured under the terms of the policy. With effect from I January 1991 the cover for these items is £145,000. All other provisions set out in the memorandum dated November 1990 and circulated to all Members remain unchanged.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Religious Education
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 123, to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on religious education, if he will also publish a copy of the letter in the Official Report.

  Mr. Eggar
  When I write, copies of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Schools
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is(a) the percentage of pupils in each local education authority who receives education in schools maintained or formerly maintained by another local education authority and (b) the number and percentage of pupils educated in schools maintained or formerly maintained by each local education authority whose place or residence is within another local education authority; and if he will list in rank order the difference between (a) and (b) for metropolitan and London authorities.

  Mr. Fallon
  The percentages and pupil numbers as at January 1990 for each local education authority are listed in the tables. The local education authorities to which pupils were deemed to belong were determined in accordance with The Education (Areas to which Pupils and Students Belong) Regulations 1989 as amended by The Education (Areas to which Pupils and Students Belong) (Amendment) Regulations 1990.

  Local education authority

  Per cent.1 exports

  Number imports

  Per cent.1 imports

  City of London

  94·3

  169

  137·4

  Camden

  22·9

  6,290

  41·4

  Greenwich

  8·2

  3,560

  12·4

  Hackney

  22·4

  2,358

  10·1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  20·7

  4,062

  34·1

  Islington

  23·2

  4,369

  24·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  32·9

  3,642

  50·3

  Lambeth

  30·1

  2,841

  10·6

  Lewisham

  15·4

  3,715

  13·6

  Southwark

  15·8

  4,279

  17·1

  Tower Hamlets

  11·0

  1,834

  6·9

  Wandsworth

  17·0

  4,463

  19·5

  Westminster

  25·4

  6,130

  56·6

  Barking and Dagenham

  4·9

  1,480

  7·6

  Barnet

  7·0

  5,023

  15·1

  Bexley

  5·4

  1,538

  5·2

  Brent

  19·1

  1,454

  4·5

  Bromley

  4·8

  1,627

  5·0

  Croydon

  7·6

  2,559

  6·8

  Ealing

  9·3

  1,530

  4·5

  Enfield

  6·0

  2,013

  5·9

  Haringey

  15·4

  2,337

  10·3

  Harrow

  9·5

  1,982

  8·4

  Havering

  3·1

  1,491

  4·7

  Hillingdon

  4·5

  934

  3·2

  Hounslow

  8·8

  2,934

  11·2

  Kingston upon Thames

  8·7

  1,643

  11·1

  Merton

  11·1

  2,003

  11·5

  Newham

  3·4

  1,438

  4·6

  Redbridge

  6·8

  1,624

  5·6

  Richmond upon Thames

  8·6

  3,159

  24·3

  Sutton

  9·0

  2,180

  10·6

  Waltham Forest

  5·5

  994

  3·6

  123

  Local education authority

  Per cent.1 exports

  Numbers imports

  Per cent.1 imports

  Birmingham

  2·4

  2,369

  1·6

  Coventry

  0·8

  598

  1·5

  Dudley

  2·8

  1,352

  3·3

  Sandwell

  3·2

  1,661

  40

  Solihull

  2·9

  2,095

  7·6

  Walsall

  2·0

  1,728

  4·5

  Wolverhampton

  3·4

  892

  2·5

  Knowsley

  10·8

  1,027

  4·1

  Liverpool

  2·0

  2,147

  3·2

  St. Helens

  5·2

  1,206

  4·5

  Sefton

  1·2

  1,237

  3·1

  Wirral

  0·6

  79

  0·2

  Bolton

  2·4

  973

  2·6

  Bury

  6·6

  1,136

  4·8

  Manchester

  5·2

  3,482

  5·9

  Oldham

  2·3

  1,663

  5·1

  Rochdale

  3·9

  536

  1·7

  Salford

  3·5

  1,461

  4·9

  Stockport

  2·3

  919

  2·4

  Tameside

  2·9

  1,137

  3·7

  Trafford

  5·3

  793

  2·8

  Wigan

  3·

  2,716

  6·2

  Barnsley

  2·0

  287

  0·9

  Doncaster

  1·0

  338

  0·8

  Rotherham

  0·7

  969

  2·6

  Sheffield

  1·2

  373

  0·6

  Bradford

  3·1

  590

  0·8

  Calderdale

  2·0

  457

  1·6

  Kirklees

  1·3

  622

  1·1

  Leeds

  1·0

  1,357

  1·5

  Wakefield

  0·7

  660

  1·6

  Gateshead

  2·3

  436

  1·7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3·1

  1,200

  3·6

  North Tyneside

  3·0

  718

  2·7

  South Tyneside

  1·1

  484

  2·4

  Sunderland

  1·0

  520

  1·2

  Isles of Scilly

  1·6

  1

  0·4

  Avon

  0·6

  1,029

  0·9

  Bedfordshire

  1·2

  1,277

  1·7

  Berkshire

  2·3

  2,657

  2·7

  Buckinghamshire

  5·0

  1,061

  1·2

  Cambridgeshire

  1·4

  688

  0·8

  Cheshire

  0·9

  2,106

  1·6

  Cleveland

  0·2

  416

  0·5

  Cornwall

  0·6

  305

  0·5

  Cumbria

  0·2

  350

  0·5

  Derbyshire

  1·2

  1,469

  1·2

  Devon

  0·6

  552

  0·4

  Dorset

  0·4

  1,925

  2·6

  Durham

  1·0

  343

  0·4

  East Sussex

  1·7

  992

  1·3

  Essex

  1·7

  1,199

  0·6

  Gloucestershire

  0·7

  1,021

  1·5

  Hampshire

  1·3

  1,759

  0·9

  Hereford and Worcester

  2·4

  1,295

  1·4

  Hertfordshire

  1·0

  4,701

  3·6

  Humberside

  0·5

  1,563

  1·3

  Isle of Wight

  0·1

  15

  0·1

  Kent

  0·5

  1,305

  0·6

  Lancashire

  1·4

  1,074

  0·6

  Leicester

  0·5

  635

  0·5

  Lincolnshire

  2·4

  730

  0·9

  Norfolk

  1·1

  660

  0·7

  North Yorkshire

  1·5

  2,070

  2·3

  Northamptonshire

  0·5

  792

  1·0

  Northumberland

  1·1

  592

  1·4

  Nottinghamshire

  0·8

  721

  0·5

  Oxfordshire

  0·8

  1,929

  2·9

  Shropshire

  1·0

  678

  1·2

  Somerset

  1·8

  475

  0·8

  124

  Local education authority

  Per cent.1 exports

  Numbers imports

  Per cent.1 imports

  Staffordshire

  1·5

  1,195

  0·8

  Suffolk

  0·7

  1,306

  1·6

  Surrey

  4·0

  3,536

  3·2

  Warwickshire

  2·0

  1,280

  2·0

  West Sussex

  1·4

  1,869

  2·2

  Wiltshire

  1·7

  552

  0·8

  Exports = Pupils belonging to each LEA attending maintained, including maintained special, schools in another LEA.

  Imports = Pupils belonging to another LEA attending maintained, including maintained special, schools in each LEA.

  1 All percentages rounded to one decimal place.

  London Authorities

  Percentage of imports less percentage of exports1

  Rank

  City of London

  43·1

  1

  Westminster

  31·2

  2

  Camden

  18·5

  3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  17·5

  4

  Richmond upon Thames

  15·8

  5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  13·4

  6

  Barnet

  8·1

  7

  Greenwich

  4·2

  8

  Barking and Dagenham

  2·7

  9

  Wandsworth

  2·5

  10

  Kingston upon Thames

  2·5

  11

  Hounslow

  2·4

  12

  Havering

  1·6

  13

  Sutton

  1·5

  14

  Southwark

  1·3

  15

  Newham

  1·2

  16

  Islington

  0·8

  17

  Merton

  0·4

  18

  Bromley

  0·1

  19

  Enfield

  0·0

  20

  Bexley

  -·2

  21

  Croydon

  -·8

  22

  Redbridge

  -1·1

  23

  Harrow

  -1·2

  24

  Hillingdon

  -1·3

  25

  Lewisham

  -1·8

  26

  Waltham Forest

  -1·9

  27

  Tower Hamlets

  -4·1

  28

  Ealing

  -4·9

  29

  Haringey

  -5·2

  30

  Hackney

  -12·2

  31

  Brent

  -14·5

  32

  Lambeth

  -19·5

  33

  Exports = puplis belonging to each LEA attending maintained, including maintained special, schools in another LEA.

  Imports = pupils belonging to another LEA attending maintained, including maintained special, schools in each LEA.

  1 All percentages rounded to one decimal place.

  Metropolitan authorities

  Per cent. of imports less per cent, of exports1

  Rank

  Solihull

  4·8

  1

  Wigan

  3·0

  2

  Oldham

  2·8

  3

  Walsall

  2·5

  4

  Sefton

  2·0

  5

  Rotherham

  1·9

  6

  Salford

  1·4

  7

  South Tyneside

  1·3

  8

  Liverpool

  1·2

  9

  Wakefield

  0·9

  10

  Tameside

  0·8

  11

  Sandwell

  0·8

  12

  Manchester

  0·7

  13

  Coventry

  0·7

  14

  125

  Metropolitan authorities

  Per cent. of imports less per cent. of exports1

  Rank

  Dudley

  0·5

  15

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0·5

  16

  Leeds

  0·5

  17

  Sunderland

  0·2

  18

  Bolton

  0·1

  19

  Stockport

  0·1

  20

  Kirklees

  - 0·1

  21

  Doncaster

  -0·2

  22

  North Tyneside

  -0·3

  23

  Calderdale

  -0·3

  24

  Wirral

  -0·4

  25

  Sheffield

  -0·6

  26

  Gateshead

  -0·7

  27

  St. Helens

  -0·7

  28

  Birmingham

  -0·8

  29

  Wolverhampton

  -0·9

  30

  Barnsley

  -1·1

  31

  Bury

  -1·7

  32

  Rochdale

  -2·2

  33

  Bradford

  -2·3

  34

  Trafford

  -2·5

  35

  Knowsley

  -6·7

  36

  1 All percentages rounded to one decimal place.

  Exports—Pupils belonging to each local education authority atending maintained, including maintained special, schools in another local education authority.

  Imports—Pupils belonging to another local education authority attending maintained, including maintained special, schools in each local education authority.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what information he has on trends in expenditure on books and equipment in grant-maintained schools;

  (2) what information he has on trends in employment of teaching and classroom support staff in grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department does not collect detailed information on these matters. However, a number of GM schools have used the additional flexibility which

  England—School leavers—Maintained schools

  Proportion of leavers with five or more GCSE results at Grades A-C as percentage of all school leavers, and the rank position of the LEA

  1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87

  1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88

  1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89

  LEA

  Per cent.

  Rank

  Per cent.

  Rank

  Per cent.

  Rank

  Barking and Dagenham

  9·9

  96

  11·8

  94

  11·3

  95

  Barnet

  41·0

  1

  41·5

  1

  38·9

  2

  Bexley

  26·6

  23

  27·8

  20

  28·5

  26

  Brent

  19·1

  73

  19·1

  75

  20·6

  78

  Bromley

  30·5

  10

  32·0

  9

  29·9

  19

  Croydon

  22·9

  51

  22·7

  55

  22·1

  70

  Ealing

  19·6

  68

  19·2

  74

  22·5

  67

  Enfield

  23·7

  45

  24·8

  44

  26·9

  41

  Haringey

  17·3

  82

  17·3

  85

  16·6

  89

  Harrow

  37·8

  2

  38·3

  2

  38·6

  3

  Havering

  23·9

  44

  23·3

  52

  24·4

  57

  Hillingdon

  21·2

  62

  20·0

  70

  22·7

  65

  Hounslow

  21·5

  58

  21·5

  63

  25·2

  49

  Kingston upon Thames

  34·8

  3

  34·1

  5

  32·2

  10

  Merton

  24·9

  36

  23·4

  49

  24·6

  54

  Newham

  12·4

  93

  14·3

  93

  14·9

  93

  Redbridge

  25·6

  32

  26·6

  28

  25·5

  47

  Richmond upon Thames

  26·5

  25

  29·6

  14

  32·4

  8

  Sutton

  34·4

  4

  34·9

  4

  39·1

  1

  Waltham Forest

  11·0

  94

  11·3

  95

  12·7

  94

  Birmingham

  16·9

  85

  18·3

  79

  19·1

  85

  126
  opting-out brings to increase the sums spent on books and equipment. Some GM schools have appointed more teaching and support staff.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils have been admitted to grant-maintained schools this year; and how many were admitted in their last years as local education authority-maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not available. However, grant-maintained schools are proving popular with parents and many grant-maintained schools have had large increases in applications.

  Schools Budgets
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of potential schools budget will be delegated to schools by Hereford and Worcestershire education authority under LMS; arid if he will provide the information in the same format as the table in columns 325–28 of the Official Report of 11 December 1990.

  Mr. Fallon
  Hereford and Worcester's LMS scheme begins only in April, but we do not yet have budget information. However, we have had early indications from the authority that in the next financial year it intends to delegate to its school in excess of 85 per cent. of the potential schools budget.

  GCSE
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list for each local education authority the proportion of school leavers with five or more GCSE results at grades A-C as a percentage of all school leavers, and the rank position of the local education authority in each of the three-year periods 1984–87, 1985–88 and 1986–89.

  Mr. Fallon
  The table gives information for leavers from maintained schools, for each local education authority, aggregated over the academic years ending 1985 to 1987, 1986 to 1988 and 1987 to 1989.
  127

  1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87

  1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88

  1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89

  LEA

  Per cent.

  Rank

  Per cent.

  Rank

  Per cent.

  Rank

  Coventry

  19·9

  67

  20·7

  68

  21·2

  76

  Dudley

  21·5

  58

  22·3

  59

  25·5

  47

  Sandwell

  13·4

  92

  14·6

  92

  15·5

  92

  Solihull

  29·4

  11

  30·8

  11

  31·7

  12

  Walsall

  19·1

  73

  20·9

  67

  23·4

  59

  Wolverhampton

  15·4

  89

  17·8

  82

  19·9

  81

  Knowsley

  10·6

  95

  10·0

  96

  8·5

  96

  Liverpool

  17·0

  84

  17·9

  81

  19·4

  84

  St. Helens

  23·6

  46

  23·2

  54

  20·5

  79

  Sefton

  27·0

  21

  26·4

  31

  28·5

  26

  Wirral

  23·5

  47

  25·9

  39

  27·8

  31

  Bolton

  24·9

  36

  26·0

  36

  28·7

  24

  Bury

  28·4

  15

  26·4

  31

  27·7

  33

  Manchester

  17·3

  82

  15·9

  90

  16·4

  90

  Oldham

  16·1

  87

  15·5

  91

  18·1

  86

  Rochdale

  20·2

  64

  18·7

  76

  20·9

  77

  Salford

  18·9

  75

  21·8

  60

  23·2

  62

  Stockport

  24·3

  41

  24·9

  43

  28·6

  25

  Tameside

  23·5

  47

  24·7

  45

  27·1

  39

  Trafford

  31·7

  7

  31·1

  10

  30·7

  15

  Wigan

  27·2

  19

  29·4

  15

  30·2

  18

  Barnsley

  15·7

  88

  16·9

  87

  19·7

  82

  Doncaster

  19·2

  72

  18·7

  76

  21·7

  73

  Rotherham

  17·4

  81

  19·5

  73

  23·0

  63

  Sheffield

  18·9

  75

  20·1

  69

  22·2

  68

  Bradford

  16·7

  86

  16·0

  89

  16·9

  88

  Calderdale

  19·3

  70

  20·0

  70

  21·5

  75

  Kirklees

  24·1

  43

  25·1

  42

  25·6

  46

  Leeds

  21·5

  58

  21·3

  65

  22·0

  71

  Wakefield

  15·4

  89

  17·6

  83

  17·5

  87

  Gateshead

  18·8

  77

  19·8

  72

  20·4

  80

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  17·7

  80

  17·4

  84

  21·6

  74

  North Tyneside

  21·9

  56

  23·3

  52

  27·5

  36

  South Tyneside

  18·1

  79

  18·3

  79

  22·2

  68

  Sunderland

  19·3

  70

  18·7

  76

  21·8

  72

  Inner London

  15·4

  89

  16·1

  88

  15·9

  91

  Avon

  24·7

  38

  26·1

  35

  27·8

  31

  Bedfordshire

  25·9

  29

  26·0

  36

  24·9

  52

  Berkshire

  27·5

  17

  29·3

  16

  32·3

  9

  Buckinghamshire

  31·6

  8

  33·4

  6

  36·0

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  24·4

  40

  26·0

  36

  28·0

  29

  Cheshire

  26·6

  23

  28·3

  19

  29·1

  23

  Cleveland

  27·5

  17

  27·1

  26

  26·5

  43

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  25·5

  33

  27·3

  24

  29·9

  19

  Cumbria

  24·2

  42

  26·9

  27

  28·0

  29

  Derbyshire

  21·5

  58

  22·4

  58

  24·6

  54

  Devon

  23·4

  49

  24·4

  47

  26·3

  44

  Dorset

  28·4

  15

  27·2

  25

  27·6

  35

  Durham

  20·0

  65

  21·0

  66

  23·4

  59

  East Sussex

  25·7

  30

  27·4

  23

  31·4

  13

  Essex

  25·1

  35

  26·3

  33

  27·4

  37

  Gloucestershire

  28·6

  14

  29·1

  17

  31·2

  14

  Hampshire

  26·0

  28

  27·7

  21

  29·6

  21

  Hereford and Worcester

  25·7

  30

  28·5

  18

  29·2

  22

  Hertfordshire

  28·9

  13

  30·3

  12

  31·9

  11

  Humberside

  21·1

  63

  21·5

  63

  22·6

  66

  Isle of Wight

  18·3

  78

  17·1

  86

  19·5

  83

  Kent

  27·1

  20

  26·5

  30

  27·3

  38

  Lancashire

  24·7

  38

  25·6

  40

  26·8

  42

  Leicestershire

  22·9

  51

  23·4

  49

  25·1

  51

  Lincolnshire

  25·3

  34

  25·2

  41

  25·2

  49

  Norfolk

  21·9

  56

  22·7

  55

  24·5

  56

  North Yorkshire

  31·4

  9

  32·8

  7

  34·5

  7

  Northamptonshire

  20·0

  65

  21·7

  61

  22·8

  64

  Northumberland

  29·0

  12

  29·8

  13

  30·7

  15

  Nottinghamshire

  19·6

  68

  21·6

  62

  23·4

  59

  Oxfordshire

  26·5

  25

  26·2

  34

  27·7

  33

  Shropshire

  27·0

  21

  27·7

  21

  30·3

  17

  Somerset

  22·2

  53

  24·5

  46

  27·1

  39

  Staffordshire

  23·4

  49

  23·4

  49

  24·9

  52

  Suffolk

  22·0

  55

  22·7

  55

  24·2

  58

  Surrey

  34·4

  4

  36·4

  3

  38·0

  4

  Warwickshire

  26·2

  27

  26·6

  28

  28·5

  26

  West Sussex

  32·1

  6

  32·5

  8

  35·5

  6

  Wiltshire

  22·2

  53

  23·9

  48

  25·9

  45

  England

  23·5

  27·4

  25·8

  128

  Primary Schools, Hertfordshire
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Education and Science whether he will estimate the total funds per pupil which would be allocated to a primary school in Hertfordshire which opted for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of grant per pupil in 1991–92 for any primary school in Hertfordshire receiving grant-maintained status will depend on the local education authority's scheme for the local management of schools and on decisions yet to be taken by Hertfordshire on its budget for that year.

  Direct Funding
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary and secondary schools have now elected for direct funding.

  Mr. Eggar
  In total, 145 schools have held ballots on the question of whether to apply for GM status, of which 109 schools have voted in favour and 36 against.

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  PCFC SECTOR

  Primary

  Recruitment

  7,816

  8,776

  9,821

  10,837

  12,029

  Funded places

  8,075

  8,499

  8,923

  9,249

  10,151

  Secondary

  Recruitment

  3,635

  4,335

  4,145

  4,214

  4,503

  Funded places

  4,391

  4,738

  5,026

  4,941

  5,301

  UFC SECTOR

  Primary

  Recruitment

  1,148

  1,328

  1,552

  1,977

  2,301

  Funded places

  1,199

  1,357

  1,509

  1,875

  2,078

  Secondary

  Recruitment

  4,290

  4,741

  4,665

  4,729

  4,960

  Funded places

  4,948

  5,043

  5,051

  5,122

  5,714

  CERN
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the Science and Engineering Research Council's total funding has been represented by the United Kingdom contribution to CERN over each of the last five years; and how this percentage is projected to change in future.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is as follows:

  United Kingdom contribution to CERN as percentage of SERC budget

  Financial year

  Per cent.

  1985–86

  12·7

  1986–87

  14·1

  1987–88

  15·7

  1988–89

  14·8

  1989–90

  11·9

  11990–91

  11·9

  11991–92

  12·8

  11992–93

  12·5

  1 Estimate.

  130
  Of the schools voting in favour, 102 have been secondary schools, four have been middle schools and three have been primary schools. Of these schools, 58 secondary schools and two middle schools have been approved for GM status and 12 schools have been rejected. Proposals from the remaining schools are either still to be published or not yet decided.

  In addition, there are ballots pending at 40 schools. Twenty-eight of these are secondary schools, one is a middle school and 11 are primary schools.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report tables showing, in respect of (a) polytechnic and other Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council colleges and (b) university departments of education the target number of places, and the number of students accepted for (i) primary places and (ii) secondary teacher training, for each year from 1986 to date.

  Mr. Fallon
  The figures are as follows:

  Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the recommendations of the report of the School Sport Forum "Sport and Young People: Partnership and Action" which required action by his Department; what action has been taken to implement each recommendation; what are the reasons where a recommendation has not been implemented in full; and what further action his Department intends to take.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's response to the School Sport Forum report "Sport and Young People: Partnership and Action" was published on 27 November 1989. Further consideration to both curricular and extra-curricular sport is now being given by the national curriculum PE working group and as part of the Government's current review of sports policy.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the recommendations of the Minister for Sport's review group on sport and active recreation provision in the inner cities which required action by his Department, setting out what action has been taken to implement each recommendation, and the reasons where they have not been implemented in full; and what further action he intends to take.
  131
  Mr. Atkins
  The recommendations of the review report "Sport and Active Recreation in the Inner Cities" are being considered as part of the Government's wider review of sports policy. We expect to announce our conclusions in the summer.

  Nuclear Physics
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the amount of the Science and Engineering Research Council's budget devoted to nuclear physics in each of the last five years in(a) cash terms and (b) constant terms.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Gross expenditure by SERC's nuclear physics board over the last five years is as follows:

  Cash terms £ million

  Constant terms £ million

  1986–87

  71,152

  92,486

  1987–88

  83,377

  102,778

  1988–89

  84,297

  96,844

  1989–90

  77,982

  84,220

  11990–91

  62,052

  62,052

  1 Forecast outturn (Excludes Laboratories Directorate expenditure previously attributed to Nuclear Physics Board).

  Veterinary Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the capital cost of bringing the animal accommodation of veterinary schools at universities up to the standard laid down in Home Office regulations.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for each university to determine how best to respond to the new code within the resources at its disposal from the Universities Funding Council and elsewhere.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial provision has been earmarked for the upgrading of animal accommodation at university veterinary schools in each of the next three financial years; and whether this provision is contained within block grant or capital provision.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The expenditure plans announced on 8 November provided an extra £10 million a year for capital spending by the Universities Funding Council. The increased total allowed for additional equipment for teaching and necessary improvements to animal houses. The distribution of aggregate capital and recurrent funds among universities is a matter for the council, which will announce its allocations for 1991–92 later this month.

DEFENCE

  Helicopter Noise (Insulation Grants)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used for the provision of helicopter noise insulation grants to houses in the vicinity of RAF Cottesmore, Leicestershire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no helicopters based at RAF Cottesmore. The noise insulation grant scheme in operation is based on fixed-wing flying.
  132
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used for the provision of helicopter noise insulation grants to houses in the vicinity of the helicopter landing site at Bessbrook, County Armagh.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Householders in the vicinity of the helicopter landing site at Bessbrook are eligible for noise insulation grants if their homes are subject to noise levels of 70dB(A) averaged over a 12-hour period. The contour which determines the boundaries of the scheme was originally predicted by computer model. Subsequent on-site noise measurements by the university of Ulster, which followed the normal convention of counting the total number of movements in a 24-hour period within the 12-hour average, produced a contour of smaller radius. Nevertheless the computer-predicted contour remains as the boundary for the noise insulation grant scheme.

  Bloodhound Missile
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current state of readiness of the Bloodhound surface-to-air missile system;

  (2) what is his policy towards the retention of the Bloodhound surface-to-air missile system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. and learned Member.

  War Pensioners Welfare
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of interviews carried out by War Pensioners Welfare staff in the last three years for which figures are available; and how many of these were at the request of the pensioner concerned.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested is in the table.

  Total number of interviews by war pensioners' welfare staff

  Number of interviews at pensioners' request

  1988

  41,229

  27,793

  1989

  43,223

  27,481

  1990

  43,672

  27,288

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Senior Citizens
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the current average weekly income of senior citizens who are totally dependent on the retirement pension and income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Very few pensioners are dependent on retirement pension and income support alone; income support beneficiaries automatically qualify for the maximum community charge benefit payable; those who are tenants also qualify for maximum housing benefit. In addition, income support recipients are exempt from national health charges, such as those for prescriptions or dental services.

  Information on the community charge benefit and housing benefit in payment to people in receipt of both

  133
  retirement pension and income support is not available. It is therefore not possible to provide an estimate of the actual weekly income of this particular group.

  In May 1989, the last date for which information is available, the average weekly payment of retirement pension and income support combined, net of the other benefit payable, was £75·391 for couples and £53·311 for singles. The average payment of housing benefit to pensioner households overall, for example, those in which either the claimant or the partner received retirement pension but not necessarily income support, was £19·50 per week.

  1 These figures represent the average income of those people who receive both income support and retirement pension (in all its derivatives) but have no other income or capital.

  European Directives
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the European directives which have been implemented by his Department since 1979 and those outstanding.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department has the main responsibility for legislation arising from only two directives:Council directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security; and
  Council directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes.

  The necessary legislation was enacted timeously.

  Year

  Annual expenditure (nearest £ million) residential care homes

  Average per claimant £

  Annual expenditure (nearest £ million) nursing homes

  Average per claimant £

  December 1981

  23

  1,769

  —

  —

  December 1982

  39

  2,438

  —

  —

  December 1983

  104

  4,000

  —

  —

  December 1984

  200

  4,762

  —

  —

  December 1985

  259

  4,702

  89

  5,933

  February 1986

  328

  4,686

  131

  6,550

  May 1987

  438

  5,214

  233

  7,281

  May 1988

  556

  5,398

  322

  7,318

  May 1989

  658

  5,529

  447

  7,982

  May 1990

  740

  5,920

  530

  8,281

  Notes:

  1. Prior to December 1985 the figures are not sufficiently reliable for the total to be subdivided into residents in residential care homes and nursing homes, and therefore only the overall total has been given.

  2. Figures for December 1981–1984 are taken from the annual statistical inquiry, figures for December 1985-May 1990 are taken from the quarterly statistical inquiry.

  Information regarding amounts paid to people in publicly owned homes (Part III) is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Injuries Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) for the country as a whole and (b) for the Nottingham offices (i) the number of claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit lodged during each of the past 10 years, (ii) how many claims were accepted and (iii) what has been the total amount paid out in such benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is as follows:
  134

  Pensioners
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total percentage of pensioner units whose income does not exceed £5,000, at current prices, for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Proportion of Pensioner Units with Income not exceeding £5,000 per annum at 1990 prices

  Year

  Percentage

  1978

  64·9

  1979

  67·1

  1980

  66·1

  1981

  62·1

  1982

  60·3

  1983

  54·1

  1984

  55·8

  1985

  54·1

  1986

  52·2

  1987

  51·1

  Income Support
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much income support has been paid to claimants in(a) private nursing home care, (b) private residential home care, (c) public nursing home care and (d) public residential care homes in the last 10 years (i) in total and (ii) as an average per claimant.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The annual expenditure and the average expenditure per claimant for private residential care and nursing homes since 1981 for people claiming income support/supplementary benefit are in the table:

  (i) Disablement Benefit Claims—Great Britain—1980–89

  Year

  Total claims (thousands)

  1989

  102

  1988

  87

  1987

  100

  1986

  122

  1985

  119

  1984

  107

  1983

  121

  135

  Year

  Total claims (thousands)

  1982

  115

  1981

  116

  1980

  126

  After 1986, claims were necessary to establish entitlement to Reduced Earnings Allowance where Disablement Benefit is itself not payable because assessed disablement is less than 14 per cent.

  (ii) Information on the number of claims accepted is not available.

  The figures below are for the number of initial assessments of disablement in the year they were first paid. Initial awards of gratuities are available until 1986–87 only.

  Initial Disablement Assessments

  Year

  Disablement Gratuities (thousands)

  Disablement Pensions (thousands)

  1989–90

  n/a

  n/a

  1988–89

  n/a

  7

  1987–88

  n/a

  10

  1986–87

  6

  5

  1985–86

  53

  6

  1984–85

  53

  6

  1983–84

  58

  6

  1982–83

  56

  7

  1981–82

  65

  6

  1980–81

  65

  7

  Figure for 1986–87 covers the period 1 October 1986 to 4 April 1987.

  (iii) Total benefit expenditure estimates for disablement benefit only are not available. The figures below include expenditure on reduced earnings allowance.

  Industrial injuries benefit expenditure 1980–81 to 1989–90

  Year

  £ (million)

  1989–90

  470

  1988–89

  451

  1987–88

  453

  1986–87

  440

  1985–86

  407

  1984–85

  381

  1983–84

  369

  1982–83

  343

  1981–82

  315

  1980–81

  282

  Disablement benefit claims received in Nottingham offices

  Year

  Total claims1

  1990–912

  693

  1989–90

  966

  1988–89

  1,052

  1987–88

  1,207

  1986–87

  1,647

  1985–86

  1,786

  1984–85

  1,486

  1 Offices at Castlegate, David Lane, Shakespeare Street and Station Street.

  2 Figures to December 1990 only.

  Note: Figures of claims made are retained at local offices for only six years. Figures relating to claims accepted and the amount paid in disablement benefit at Nottingham offices are not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the countries visited by each of the Ministers in his Department since he became Secretary of State, with the topics discussed in each country.
  136
  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is as follows:

  Country

  Topics discussed

  Secretary of State

  United States of America

  Family maintenance systems

  Minister of State

  United States of America

  Disability

  France

  Disability

  Former Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Mrs. Shephard)

  Germany

  Social Charter, Occupational Pensions operational matters

  Portugal

  Pension age, Social Charter, standards, use of IT in social security context

  Belgium

  Discussions on Social Charter with EC Social Affairs Commissioner

  Discussions on pensions age and Social Charter with Belgium Ministers

  Ireland

  EC Presidency—social affairs proposals

  Ireland

  Informal Social Affairs Council

  Belgium

  Speech to Social Services Committee of the Senate and meeting at National Labour Council

  France

  Visit to European Parliament, Strasbourg—general discussion

  Italy

  Forthcoming EC Presidency—Social Affairs proposals

  Egypt

  Invited by Egyptian Minister Egyptian situation discussed

  Italy

  Informal Social Affairs Council

  Luxembourg

  Forthcoming EC Presidency—Social Affairs proposals

  Belgium

  Speech to Ligue de Families

  Agencies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress on the conversion of his Department's regions into agencies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has so far established two agencies, the Resettlement Units executive agency in May 1989 and the Information Technology Services agency in April 1990. The Social Security Benefits agency and the Contributions agency are planned to be implemented in April 1991. The White Paper "Children Come First", CM 1264, announced the proposed setting up of the child support agency in early 1993.

  The aim of introducing agencies is to enable the Department to provide a better quality of service to its customers by the introduction of more effective and efficient management.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to propose changes to the mobility allowance to ensure that it would apply to anyone made immobile after their 66th birthday.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no such plans.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on levels of overpayment of housing benefit by local authorities; and what guidance is issued by his Department in such cases.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available information shows that in 1988–89, 475 out of 483 local authorities in Great Britain identified overpayments amounting to £213 million. This includes overpayments arising through fraud and claimant or administrative error. Guidance on all aspects of overpayments is included in the housing benefit guidance manual issued by this Department. This is supplemented by the issue of circulars as appropriate. Officials also advise authorities by telephone and in writing in individual cases.

  SERPS
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards the review or abolition of the incentives for people who have already opted out of SERPS.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Sections 3 and 7 of the Social Security Act 1986 restrict entitlement to the 2 per cent. incentive for members of personal pensions and new occupational schemes to a period before 6 April 1993. The Secretary of State has a statutory duty to review the terms of the contracted-out rebate at intervals of not more than five years and this will be done on receipt of a report by the Government Actuary.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards those who, having opted out of SERPS, seek to return to SERPS when the incentives to opt out end.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are no restrictions on an individual who is a member of an occupational or personal pension scheme rejoining SERPS at any time.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the cost to the taxpayer of the opting out from SERPS.
  138
  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 20 December 1990 at column 316.

  War Pensions Office, Swansea
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about proposals to close the war pensions office in Swansea; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No representations have been received, but there have been a number of local inquiries about the future of the Swansea war pensioners welfare office. The matter was also discussed at a meeting of the Dyfed and West Glamorgan war pensions committee in December 1990. The proposal was one of a number of recommendations about the location of war pensioners welfare offices made in the report of a routine management inspection of the war pensioners welfare service carried out last year. The recommendations are being considered, but no decisions have yet been taken. Any proposals for change which may emerge will be discussed fully with the central advisory committee on war pensions, and local war pensions committees will have an opportunity to comment. The interests of war pensioners and war widows will be safeguarded and we shall ensure that the effectiveness of the welfare service is fully maintained.

  Census Officers
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to amend the unemployment benefit entitlement regulations so as to allow unemployed persons to apply for the position of assistant census officer without disadvantaging their financial position.

  Mr. Jack
  An unemployed person, in receipt of benefit, will be subject to the normal earnings rules if he becomes an assistant census officer.

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

The Budget: Institute of Directors Report
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have made to the submission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Institute of Directors entitled Budget 1991: Reform in Difficult Times.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, my right honourable friend has read the institute's submission with interest and will be meeting representatives shortly. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot anticipate my right honourable friend's Budget Statement.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which I am sure will give comfort all round. Is he aware that in paragraph 31 the report states that the claimed:
"tax reductions since 1979 have been illusory",
and that the director general said that,
"contrary to popular belief, the burden of taxation has risen from 33% to 37% of national income since 1979"?
Are the Government aware that the British public have been misled in that way? Can he inform the House who has been deliberately creating that illusion? Will the Minister promise that in the run-up to the election the public will not be deluded into believing that the tax burden has fallen but will be told the truth—that the tax burden has risen significantly?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not know whether there has been an illusion, but I wonder whether it is an illusion that such a notable member of the Opposition should be talking about reductions in the tax burden. The noble Lord does not appreciate that what counts is take-home pay, and in real terms take-home pay has risen by 30 per cent. since 1979 for married men with two children on average earnings.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the more considerable mistakes made by Her Majesty's Government since 1979 was to raise VAT from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent? Is he aware that one of the easiest ways available to Her Majesty's Government to bring down the rate of inflation is to restore the rate of VAT to what it was under a Labour Government, thereby reducing the rate of inflation by at least three points?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are not going to reduce the VAT tax burden. In the early 1980s we made it quite clear what we felt about VAT. Something else that we shall not do is to return to a public sector borrowing requirement which at its peak when Labour were in power was equivalent to 9¼ per cent. of GDP.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the document to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred the Institute of Directors states that it has focused on the themes of commercial survival and the promotion of saving? Will he indicate whether the Government are also focusing on those themes and, if they are, what they are going to do about them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have those views very much in mind when he makes his decisions on the Budget.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the document speaks of the danger of thousands of small firms being driven out of business unless the rate of interest is reduced? Have the Government any intention of listening to that opinion and taking the report seriously?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I have already indicated, my right honourable friend will be meeting the Institute of Directors to discuss the report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does it not worry the Minister and the Government that the Institute of Directors, which is very friendly to the Government and the Tory Party, should be embarking upon such wide and cogent criticism of their policy? Is it not a fact that this Government in their economic strategy are embarked upon a policy of economic sadism against the people of this country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is quite clearly nonsense. Had it been true, we should never have won three election victories and we should not win a fourth one, which I am sure we shall.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in responding to that part of the Institute of Directors' submission concerned with tax cuts, will the Minister say whether he thinks that the tax cuts of 1988 have brought about the economic prosperity that the Government predicted at the time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the tax cuts of the 1988 Budget have shown themselves to be a great success in restoring incentives.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not know which is more bizarre, the Minister's answers or the Institute of Directors' document. I certainly do not envy the Government in having to meet those peculiar people. Do the Government have any comment on one of the more bizarre suggestions, that following the precedent in New Zealand the salary of the Governor of the Bank of England should be inversely related to the inflation rate?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a direct proposal which the Institute of Directors has made. No doubt my right honourable friend will consider it very carefully.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, if we are to speak of things bizarre, is it not more bizarre than anything else that the Opposition Benches, who

1063
perpetually ask us to spend more money on this, that and the other, should now talk about reducing the burden of taxation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have to say to my noble and learned friend that I regard it as being very encouraging.
Lord Peston; My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has not been misled. None of my noble friends nor I have said anything about reducing the burden of taxation. Is he aware that if he cares to attend the economics debate next week, he will hear some quite interesting remarks on what ought to be done with fiscal policy?

EC Tobacco Regime: Costs
2.43 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total cost to the European Community of subsidies for tobacco growing and what is the total expenditure by member states on public warnings of the dangers of smoking to health.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, total expenditure on the European Community tobacco regime in 1989 was 1,139 million ecu (£746 million). Some 85 per cent. of this was spent on direct support for production; the remainder on intervention and export refunds.
Information on total expenditure by European Community member states on public warnings of the dangers of smoking to health is not available. The United Kingdom Government spend some £3 million per year on the Health Education Authority's programmes on smoking. Health warnings are printed on cigarette packets and advertisements in the United Kingdom at no cost to the taxpayer.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that far from comprehensive reply, inasmuch as he omitted all the European countries' expenditure on warnings against smoking. However, does he not accept that it is an absurd situation that we should be simultaneously financing the production of tobacco and financing the warning to people not to use it?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely good point. As I have said on previous occasions at this Dispatch Box, the entire tobacco situation poses a dilemma. However, the Government are concerned to ensure that the tobacco regime does not undermine efforts to reduce the incidence of disease and early death attributable to tobacco.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the reports of the European Court of Auditors in respect of the Commission accounts for the years ending 31st December 1987 and 31st December 1988 have drawn attention to the widespread fraud in the administration of the tobacco
1064
regime? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will take up this matter with his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is primarily concerned, rather than with his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, who is more concerned with defending the regime?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, fraud is treated extremely seriously by this Government. I shall endeavour to pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend. However, in relation to Treasury ministerial attendance at the Agriculture Council when tobacco is discussed, there is well established and satisfactory machinery by which Ministers attending councils of the European Community clear their lines on important matters with their colleagues, including Treasury colleagues.
Lord Renton; My Lords, cannot tobacco growers be persuaded to grow alternative crops of a more beneficial kind?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, because of terrain, soil and climate the problem is that few, if any, alternative crops are available. Almost all alternative crops, such as vines and olives, are already in surplus. Timber growing obviously has a long lead time and thereby produces no income for current tobacco growers.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Earl give the House the latest figures for the export of tobacco from Europe to third world countries, particularly high tar tobacco? Is it still the case that we subsidise tobacco growers to export to third world countries those tobacco products which are on the decline in Europe and push them there despite their high tar content?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, about one third of the European Community's tobacco production is exported outside the Community. Over two thirds of EC exports are sold to developed countries and only one third to developing countries of the third world. So only about 10 per cent. of EC production goes to the third world. Total exports in 1989 were 185,000 tonnes.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the context of this Question the decisions taken by the European Community are not governed by logic or reason, as the Question appears to suppose, but by purely political considerations?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I said earlier, the situation poses a complete dilemma.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House why his right honourable friend the Minister criticises with such vigour the Community regime for rice while adopting a somewhat passive attitude towards tobacco? Rice is a harmless if costly Community crop which is in surplus because consumers in the Community prefer to purchase rice produced in countries other than Europe. Can he say why the Minister is not more vigorous in his attitude towards the tobacco regime?—because that which is

1065
grown tobacco-wise is generally of poor quality and has little to commend it apart from the growers' acknowledged dependence on it.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has made an interesting comparison with rice. However, as I said, because of the terrain, soil and climate few, if any, alternative crops are available to be grown on that ground.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, which countries in the European Community grow tobacco?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, mainly Greece and Italy.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, do not my noble friend's answers confirm that the Community's agricultural policy is a shambles? Can he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are determined to remedy the situation, however unpopular they may make themselves in the process?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I ask my noble friend to be patient. I understand noble Lords' anxieties about the EC tobacco regime. However, prospects for progress will not be clear for a while. First, we must see the outcome of the GATT round and how it will affect the way in which the CAP works at the Community's frontiers. Secondly, we must see what changes to the CAP will be made within the Community. We expect that the proposals from the Commission in this context will cover the tobacco regime. We know that it has been examining that critically. We hope that it will make robust proposals, as we have urged. Once those proposals are published tough negotiations will take place but they will take a good few months.

Homelessness: Local Authority Housing
2.51 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the increasing numbers of homeless persons and families, they will now remove the restrictions on local authorities using their capital receipts to build new low-cost homes to let.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we do not propose to change the present rules on the use of capital receipts by local authorities. It is government policy that new subsidised housing for rent should principally be provided by housing associations with local authorities fulfilling an enabling role. If authorities were allowed to spend all of their capital receipts, areas of lower housing need would tend to have more to spend while areas of greater need would tend to have less. We introduced the new capital finance system in April last year to overcome this problem and to allow us to target higher levels of credit approvals where the need is greatest.
Lord Jay: My Lords, this Government's housing policy has produced a record number of homeless
1066
families—more than 130,000—and the attempt to build low-cost houses through the private sector has proved almost a total failure. Therefore, what conceivable reason is there for continuing this senseless restriction?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord's comments. The number of homeless people remained almost static during the 1980s. There are 2 million more houses than there were in 1979. Credit approvals for local authorities have increased; housing revenue subsidy has increased; housing corporation finances have increased; home ownership has increased from 50 per cent. to 69 per cent.—I could go on.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, while recognising the truth of my noble friend's remarks, does she agree that at present the construction industry is not overheated and that there remains a real need for low-cost houses to buy and to rent? In regard to capital receipts, should not the Government apply their principle of accountability of local authorities to the local electorate?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have done a great deal in respect of the rented sector. We have introduced a process of deregulation which has helped the situation. It might help even more if members of the parties opposite would cease continually threatening to repeal deregulation. That has done a great deal to knock confidence in the rented sector. The situation in the construction industry has not inhibited our plans for housing associations to produce about 40,000 new houses in each of the next three years.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that families whose homes were repossessed because they could not pay their mortgage cannot be helped by housing associations because they assisted such families to acquire the house in the first place? Therefore, the local authorities are left to rehouse these families and sometimes the authorities are compelled to allow them to jump the housing queue. All that is at great expense; probably more expensive than if we had not meddled about with interest rates.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has mixed up many problems in that statement. I am addressing the subject of housing. The Government are taking many steps and I have named some of them. We have allocated £50 million to help rural areas; £270 million towards state action programmes; and £300 million in addition to main-stream funding to help the statutory homeless. I take this opportunity to congratulate the building societies which are going to enormous lengths to assist people and therefore avoid repossession.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister referred to housing associations. Is it not the case that even if their current output were doubled or trebled it would be inadequate to meet the need?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one cannot get away from demographic change. More young people are leaving home and requiring somewhere to live. People

1067
are living longer. That is good but it puts a demand on housing stock. I believe that we are doing what is practicable given the available resources and the fact that all the money we spend comes from taxpayers.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, did the Minister notice that the number of homeless people became significant when the Government began to sell off council houses? As the number of council house sales increases so does the number of homeless people. Why do not the Government recognise the correlation between the two and stop the foolish policy of deliberately reducing the pool of low-cost houses for rent?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord's comments. The total number of homeless people remained almost static throughout the 1980s. Most people who purchased their council houses would still be living in those houses had they not done so. However, they are now more satisfied because they are home owners instead of merely tenants.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since we are always being told that local authorities are so impoverished will my noble friend tell the House how many local authorities spend up to the 25 per cent. capital receipt level, as they are allowed for this or any other purpose? Further, can my noble friend confirm that local authorities are allowed to spend 100 per cent. of their capital receipts for the purpose of immediate resale of houses to poorer people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right in regard to his second question. We do not yet have statistics showing the number of local authorities which will spend up to 25 per cent. under the new scheme because this is its first year. The record was patchy for the old scheme and it was changed following reports on it.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that although housing is a complex subject it is a key problem? The less the Government succeed in solving the housing problem the more they multiply other social problems.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. Housing is a key issue and the Government take it most seriously. Their record compares favourably with that of the previous government. At the end of the day one can do only what is practicable. The money that we spend on housing comes from the taxpayer.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, is there not a particular shortage of housing for young people who are not yet in a position to buy their houses? Is it not beyond the power of the well-supported housing associations to meet the whole of that demand?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes the important point that housing is a particular difficulty for young people. The reduction in inflation will go a long way towards helping them. Many
1068
building societies and housing associations are resorting to a number of mechanisms to help young people to become home owners.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the Minister has paid great credit to the housing associations, but is she aware of the utter confusion that arose in the past year during the Government's change of financial policies? The result is that many associations which were building low-cost housing for the homeless had to stop doing so because of the cut-back in the grant from the Housing Corporation? That is a well-known fact. May I remind the Minister that, as a result of the sale of council houses, local authorities could have the money? All they need to do is work with building societies and housing associations in order to build houses for the homeless. That is what we are interested in, not statistics.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whatever problems the noble Baroness may attribute to the housing associations, the reason for those problems is not a cut in funding. The Housing Corporation received 35 per cent. extra in its funding this year and by 1993 it will have received an 88 per cent. increase over the current year. Therefore, the noble Baroness is not right in what she says.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that her answers to my noble friends Lord Jay and Lord Glenamara were lacking in her usual candour? She said that in the 1980s the numbers of homeless remained static. However, the statistics issued by her own department demonstrate a dramatic increase. Is it not also the case that the house building programme in local authority areas has collapsed because since 1979 financial assistance from the Treasury to building programmes in the public sector has been reduced from over £5 billion to less than £1 billion? Bearing in mind that between £3 million and £4 million of public assets are doing nothing and that the building industry employment force will be cut by 100,000 people in the next year, will the Minister ask her department to see sense and unlock some of those resources so that the building industry can build houses for the benefit of all?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not that the money is not being used. Seventy-five per cent. of the money is reducing debt and 25 per cent. is applied to capital building. Secondly, the noble Lord and the Government must agree to disagree about the fact that he believes that only local authorities should be the direct providers. We believe that it is important that houses are built and that local authorities should be enablers.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, your Lordships may feel that it is now appropriate to move on. We have spent 24 minutes on Questions and there is still another to be answered.

East Timor
3.2 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in respect of Indonesian aggression in East Timor.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to promote contacts between the Indonesian and Portuguese governments aimed at achieving a settlement which reflects the interests of the East Timorese people.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in December 1975 the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution which,
"calls upon the Government of Indonesia to withdraw without delay all its forces from the territory".
What have Her Majesty's Government done and what are they doing to implement that Security Council resolution, a part of which also called upon all members to support the resolution and its implementation? Is the noble Lord aware that in the meantime, according to Her Majesty's Government's figures, between 60,000 and 100,000 people in East Timor have lost their lives as a result of that invasion and occupation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the United Nations has moved on since 1975. I remind the noble Lord that in 1982 the United Nations Secretary-General was asked by the General Assembly to promote talks between the two governments with a view to reaching a bilateral settlement. We support that process and believe that the Secretary-General's approach is the best way forward.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, taking account of what the noble Lord has just said, and given the way that Indonesia has treated the East Timorese, how can the sale of arms on a huge scale by this country to Indonesia be justified? Can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government support the United Nations' decision to send a fact-finding mission to East Timor in the spring?
Lord Reay: My Lords, with regard to the first question, our policy is to meet requests from the Indonesian government for their legitimate defence needs. I do not have any figures for the amount of arms which we have supplied in recent years. However, there is no evidence that British military items sold to Indonesia have been used in East Timor.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to justify the sale of arms, including arms which could be and are used against the East Timorese, resulting in the death, as my noble friend said, of between 60,000 and 100,000 out of a population of 600,000 Timorese, on such a scale? Does he not agree that their sale by a civilised country like Britain is one of the causes and seeds of war in this world at present?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I understand that at present there is anxiety as regards the export of arms.
1070
However, I repeat that there is no evidence that British military items sold to Indonesia have been used in East Timor.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that if Security Council Resolution No. 384 of 1975, mentioned by my noble friend, had been acted upon—not necessarily involving armed force—then other potential aggressors, such as one with whom we are having a certain amount of bother at present, may have been deterred? Do the Government now regard the Indonesian aggression in East Timor as a fait accompli?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there are important differences between the two cases which the noble Lord seeks to raise. However, the important point is to look forward. In our view, the Secretary-General's efforts offer the best prospects.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will answer the second part of my question about the United Nations fact-finding mission.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have no information with me with regard to a United Nations fact-finding mission. However, I shall investigate the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that an East Timorese member of the Indonesian National Assembly was reputed to have been arrested recently? Is that true and, if so, has that member since been released?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have no information on the issue which the noble Baroness raises. Again, I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that his original Answer to me was not completely correct by implication? In the original Security Council Resolution No. 384 of 1975, responsibility was passed to the Secretary-General who was asked to promote talks between the Portuguese and the Indonesians. That is now nearly 16 years ago. How is it that Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States—apparently friendly with and supportive of the Government of Indonesia for 16 years—have been in breach of a Security Council resolution passed unanimously which still stands and has not been overtaken by events?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is also true that in 1982 the United Nations Secretary-General was asked to do what he could to promote talks between Portugal and Indonesia with a view to reaching a negotiated agreement. We believe that we should support the United Nations in those endeavours.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord summarised the purpose of this Bill in the one sentence:
"The purpose of the Bill is to make it easier to enforce civil court judgments throughout most of Europe".—[Official Report, 20/12/90; col. 921.]
Nothing need be added on Third Reading to those discussions in the course of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, made a most interesting and useful contribution. It remains only for me to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his pilotage.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his remarks and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for his participation at Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Crime of Vagrancy (Abolition) Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 67 [Fee for occupation of the highway]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 37, line 41, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations, where the provisions of this part are consistently not complied with, for an undertaker executing works in a street designated as traffic sensitive to pay the prescribed fee for occupation of the highway").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 115, standing in my name and that of
1072
the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 116, 117 and 118, also standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
In Clause 67 we return to the vexing question of fees for the occupation of the highway. This matter was debated at Second Reading and during Committee stage. The primary reason for the tabling of these amendments arises from the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in the clause stand part debate during Committee stage.
I recognise that the Minister reiterated the Government's intention to include this scheme in the Bill. Equally, I recognise the assurances that have been given, particularly those contained in government Amendment No. 141 at Committee stage which allows for repayment of fees already paid where the work is completed earlier than expected. Nevertheless, the utilities have a right to place apparatus in the highway. That is conferred upon them by a number of statutes all of which have been reconfirmed by Parliament within the past few years.
When the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke to an earlier amendment on 6th December he said that the placing of apparatus in or under the highway was a privilege and not a right. But clearly the reverse is true. In 1984 under the Telecommunications Act, in 1986 under the Gas Act and in 1989 under both the Electricity and the Water Acts, specific powers were conferred upon the utilities to lay plant in the public highway.
This series of amendments is designed to overcome practical difficulties; to add sensibility to the Bill, and to underline the intentions of the Government. I suggest that if a scheme involving fees is introduced, it should relate only to traffic-sensitive routes. At the same time, any such scheme should provide for free periods when no charges would be payable. That would represent the core time for a job. Where emergency works are concerned, almost by definition the utility needs no incentive to complete the job as quickly as possible and such works could reasonably be exempt from fees.
I suggest that it is unreasonable to prescribe a fee where emergency works are undertaken. Why should an undertaker be charged for fulfilling his obligations to protect the public from likely danger? That is essentially how emergency works have been described during the debates on this matter. In practical terms it is impossible to determine how long emergency repairs will take until the full extent of the emergency is recognised. Indeed, that recognition cannot be made until remedial works have at least started. To fix some arbitrary period seems to be not only unreasonable, but also not sensible.
At the outset I said that I recognised that the intentions of the Government were to impose a financial incentive for works to be completed quickly. I do not believe that Amendment No. 115 would in anyway diminish that responsibility. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in supporting the amendment I briefly return to what was said when, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was kind enough to say,

1073
I raised the matter during the debate on clause stand part at Committee stage. We have teased out the problem quite a long way. It is clear that the Government believe that in many circumstances to charge a fee would instil a discipline on the person digging the hole in the road. However, the Government have accepted that this is a provision that will be used only in exceptional circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, set out the position extremely well this afternoon. However, I should like to make one point. The danger of putting an arbitrary period on emergency works may create a tendency to short-cut the situation and lead to some safety or health hazards. The people who will be carrying out these works feel that it is right for the Government to spell out that the provision will be used only in limited circumstances. They believe that it is something which should appear on the face of the Bill.
The local authorities understand the situation. They are prepared to go along with it in principle, although they may not be especially happy with the wording of the amendment. I had hoped that by this time the local authorities and the utilities might have got together and come up with a joint amendment. Perhaps it is not too late for that to happen before the later stages of the Bill. It not only has to come back here for Third reading, but it also has to go through another place.
This afternoon, even if we achieve nothing more, it would be useful if we obtained agreement from the Minister that he too would like to see the provision on the face of the Bill, provided that agreed wording could be found. It is an important issue. As we have said many times, there has been a considerable amount of agreement about the Bill between the local authorities and the utilities. This House, both at Second Reading and Committee, has been unwilling to upset the balance between the contending forces.
The amendment concerns an area which is still unresolved. I hope that the Minister can assist. Even if the series of amendments is not totally to his liking, I hope that he will be prepared to introduce a government amendment at a later stage.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be wise to reduce the effects of the provisions in Clause 67 as much as my noble friend Lord Lucas proposes with these amendments, especially in limiting their application to traffic-sensitive routes only. Of course we want to maintain the co-operation and harmony which have been achieved in these very complicated matters between the highway and the statutory authorities. My noble friend started off by emphasising the statutory right of undertakers to place works in the road. That is true. But what Parliament has not really defined before this Bill is at traffic has the right to use the road. What we are considering here, I think for the first time, is the balance between the needs of the statutory undertakers to place their works in the road and the needs of the vehicles to pass along it.
When every year now there are literally millions of openings on the roads, especially in towns, and when
1074
traffic congestion is such a very important aspect of town and city life throughout the country, this is a timely moment for my noble friend the Minister to put this clause into the Bill. It will introduce into the Bill and onto the statute book some balance between the needs of moving traffic and the needs of the statutory undertaker. By the introduction of a scheme which has been called lane rental on motorways, for the first time the statutory undertaker has a direct incentive to be as quick as he can in his own interests and in those of the people for whom he is working. That must surely be a sensible and practical measure.
I am quite certain that my noble friend has no thought of laying down an arbitrary time limit within which a statutory undertaker has to work. However, if he knows that he is paying for each extra day that he works there and has his equipment on the road, naturally he will have a strong incentive to be as quick as possible. The application of this principle to motorways has shown a substantial saving both in time and money. Therefore, its general application to all roads seems to be no more than sensible and practical. I am sure that my noble friend will balance carefully the amount of the charge and the conditions of its application when he comes to make the regulations which will introduce the measure.
My noble friend Lord Lucas said that the statutory undertaker needs no incentive to be as quick as he can. In the real world we see a statutory undertaker who is about to undertake work on a road—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred specifically to emergency work when he used those words; namely, that there is no incentive for delay when doing emergency works because there is necessarily a danger to health and safety. I do not think he extended the measure beyond emergency work.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, we can both look at Hansard tomorrow. I wrote down what my noble friend said as he said it.
The point I am making is that it is common experience that when undertakers are about to begin roadworks they bring the equipment along one week and start work the following week. That denies people the use of a lane on the road. We see that happening all over the country. We need to offer an incentive to stop such practices and also to clear up afterwards. Every day equipment is left on roads that interferes with the flow of traffic, and that is costing all traffic users and the town road system extra money in terms of delivery costs.
We are talking about the real world and not an imaginary one. It is sensible to build this incentive into the Bill. I do not think that the extra discipline will seriously interfere with the work of the statutory undertaker; it will probably improve it. I have said once before, and it is worth saying again, that there are modern techniques of trenchless digging which can greatly reduce the degree of tearing up the road surface and thereby reduce the charges made in order to carry out the work on the highway. As we know,

1075
British Gas has introduced trenchless digging over thousands of miles of work, and it is greatly to its advantage because it is much cheaper. It is even more to the advantage of moving traffic.
It is a desirable incentive to use these modern methods of dealing with cables and pipes on the highway: their more general use should be encouraged. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not reduce the effectiveness of the Bill by accepting the amendment to reduce the application of the provision to sensitive routes only. It should be applied to all routes. That would be the proper thing to do. My noble friend can cater for that with the statutory orders that he makes.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Minister said at an earlier stage that the provision was not going to be used across the board? He said that it would be restricted to certain situations.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall also make a brief second speech. Of course I know what my noble friend said. But I expect that in his regulations he will take care of all practical considerations.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wish briefly to support what my noble friend Lord Nugent has said. Any visitor to this city could well come to the conclusion that the highway is meant for almost any purpose other than moving about. It would be wise to seek the advice of those who regularly use it. I am one of those who believe that some of the more intelligent people who use our highways are the taxi drivers. We must face the harsh fact that if we are not prepared to build new roads we have to restrict fairly severely the use of those we have.
Although the utilities are capable of painting quite attractive and alluring pictures of themselves and their activities, the general experience is very much on the lines indicated by my noble friend Lord Nugent just now. Contractors come along a week or so before they are prepared to do the work, make their preparations, leave what they believe is convenient to them on site and then go away until they are ready to complete the next stage. I very much hope that my noble friend will not be tempted, in the form of this amendment, into taking out of the Bill such teeth as it has.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I wish to make it absolutely clear, as I believe I said at Second Reading and also in Committee, that the highway authorities do not in any way oppose the general principle of the clause. However, they have emphasised time and time again that they wish it to be a reserve power only to be used when everything else provided for is not working.
The two noble Lords who introduced the amendments went through the history so I shall not go into it. When the existing subsection (6) was introduced at Committee stage the Minister made the matter absolutely clear then and during the debate on clause stand part, when he said:
"This is a provision worth having in reserve".
He went on to say:
1076
"the first of any regulations made under this section would need to be brought in by an affirmative resolution instrument".
He continued:
"We shall of course continue consultations with those involved on that issue".—[Official Report, 6/12/90; col. 345.]
That followed what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said about continuing discussions.
What rather surprises me in this is that we are all agreed that the provision should be an emergency power to be used only when everything else has failed. Yet for some reason the Government are very timid about writing that into the Bill; and with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, he is also timid about writing it into the Bill. I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said. Although he was speaking in support of the amendment to which his name is attached, he said that he would like to have seen written into the Bill itself a provision stating that this was a reserve power only to be used when everything else had failed. If it has to be used it means that some of the basic principles in the Bill are not working. The local authorities would definitely welcome an amendment to the clause to provide that it is a reserve power. I should like to see this amendment carried today; equally, at the next stage, I should like to see the clause made stronger by a further amendment making clear that it is only to be used as a reserve power.
I know the Minister has stated that it is a reserve power. But as has been said time and again, while it is useful to have statements from the Minister, what is more important is that the face of a Bill should actually carry the provision. I hope the Minister will again make it absolutely clear that the Government regard this as a reserve power only to be used when this type of provision has failed and that he will be able to continue the discussions with a view to producing an amendment to make that clear on the face of the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have to say that I absolutely fail to understand his point. How can he claim that the making of a reserve power—only to be used therefore exceptionally—strengthens the Bill? It seems to me to weaken it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, with the leave of the House, there have been discussions between utilities and the highway associations. I understand that the local authority associations are continuing the discussions. Anything that is written into the Bill is far stronger than a statement made by the Minister. That is really what we want to see done. I should like the Minister to say how, since 6th December, these discussions have progressed and whether there has been any disagreement on this issue. To my mind there has been no disagreement. Therefore the timidity on this matter both of the Government and of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Tordoff, in introducing the amendment is something I cannot fully understand.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we discussed this clause both at Committee stage and Second Reading and I have discussed it with representatives of the utilities as well. It is well known that the Government want to use every means at their disposal to reduce traffic congestion and to get the most from existing roads. As my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Peyton said utility street works are a major cause of delays. In fact there is no disagreement in the House as to that matter. I am confident that at least some of these delays can be avoided, which would be to the benefit of all road users. Charging would act as a powerful incentive on utilities and others to plan their works so as to reduce the disruption they cause. By limiting their scope, these amendments would significantly weaken the provisions on charging for the occupation of road space during street works. For this reason the Government find them unacceptable.
The first amendment would permit the introduction of any such scheme only where the Secretary of State was satisfied that undertakers were consistently failing to comply with their obligations under this part. It would further limit the scope of any scheme, first, by restricting it to traffic-sensitive streets, and secondly—together with the final two amendments to this clause—by seeking to exclude all emergency works. However, any failure by undertakers to comply with their requirements under the Bill is a matter for the courts, and it would be neither possible nor proper for the Secretary of State to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable levels of breaches of the law. As. I have said before, there will of course be full consultation with those likely to be affected by it before any charging scheme is introduced. The first regulations prescribing fees under Clause 67 will also have to be approved by Parliament.
We shall consider any proposals put forward by the highway authorities and utilities as to the scope of the charges that may be prescribed. However, we would wish to avoid unnecessarily limiting this new power which has been deliberately drawn wide enough to allow any charging scheme to be targeted at the avoidance of unnecessary delays. Which works should be subject to charges will become apparent after experience with the new arrangements. My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned exemption of emergency works from charging. Exclusion of emergency works from the charging provisions would provide renewed scope for abuse of the category of emergency works. That abuse is well known at the present time. The street works associated with emergencies must be carried out efficiently and charging would provide an incentive to do so.
The wording of Clause 67 does not mean that a fee will be payable by undertakers in every case. The Secretary of State may not prescribe a scheme or may prescribe different rates of fee which could include free periods for different works. The power to charge would be used where it was considered most likely to achieve reductions in the amount of delay and inconvenience. The scheme could be structured so that the great majority of works not causing any more obstruction than was reasonably necessary would escape charges altogether. As my noble friend Lord
1078
Nugent pointed out, utilities could avoid passing charges on to their customers by entering into lane rental type contracts with their contractors. I confirm what my noble friend said about the success of lane rental contracts as concerns government roads.
Lastly, on the point of reserve powers, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that it is undesirable to express this power in reserve terms. The amendment illustrates the difficulty of describing the circumstances in which a power would or would not be used. The requirement to have the approval of Parliament to the introduction of a charging scheme will effectively allow a review of the circumstances which have made it necessary to make those charges.
I hope that the House will not agree to these amendments. On strong grounds we believe that this is a useful power to have in the Bill. At the same time I hope that I have been able to give my noble friend some reassurance on the effect of it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am sure that my noble friends Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Peyton of Yeovil would not accuse me of moving away from the lobbies which we have shared on questions of traffic movement. I seek with no lack of timidity to draw a balance between work that has to be undertaken properly and expeditiously and the free movement of traffic. On the question of an emergency, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, drew attention to what I said. My noble friend the Minister then suggested that it would be very difficult for the scope of an emergency to be defined. In my heart, I find that a little difficult to accept.
A balance has to be struck. Unless the regulations are most carefully drawn and have the full acceptance of the local authorities and the utilities, the provisions of the Bill will provide not an incentive to get on with work quickly but perhaps more of a disincentive to do certain works because of the definition of "emergency". Nevertheless, I am not prepared this afternoon to invite your Lordships to determine the case that I and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, have advanced. I thank my noble friend the Minster for his forbearance in dealing with the matter for a third time. I believe that he has taken account of the feelings which have been expressed and that he has given certain assurances which may later find their way on to the statute book.
In conclusion, I should tell my noble friend the Minister that I accept the fact that no provision should be put into a Bill which obliges the Secretary of State at any time to determine the law; indeed, that is for the courts. No one should seek to take that duty away from them. In the circumstances, I shall leave the matter as it stands. I have taken full account of what has been said both previously and this afternoon and of the points made by my noble friend. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 116 to 118 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Liability for cost of temporary traffic regulation]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 39, line 17, leave out ("or in consequence of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords who were present on Second Reading may remember that I asked the Minister whether it was intended to charge for loss of revenue from parking meters. He replied that it was not the intention to do so. On that occasion I also asked what was the Government's view on attempts by local authorities to charge utilities for the loss of revenue from such meters. I said that in my view it appeared that a draconian measure was being taken in many areas. The Minister replied that,
"As regards the lost revenue from parking meters, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that there is no proposal to provide for compensation in such cases".—[Official Report, 20/11/90; col. 671.]
The simple purpose of the amendment is to make clear on the face of the Bill that consequential losses, such as meter revenues and road tolls, are not recoverable under the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the amendment would limit the costs recoverable from undertakers in respect of temporary traffic regulation measures which are necessitated by street works. It would exclude costs incurred by a traffic authority or concessionaire "in consequence" of any orders made or notices issued. That could have the effect of excluding, for example, the costs of signing diversions. Clause 69 is based on a recommendation of the Horne Committee and would be weakened unduly by excluding from its scope an important element of the costs which undertakers' works impose on highway authorities.
The amendment is unnecessary as it will be open to an undertaker to challenge any costs which it considers to be unreasonable. Clause 89, as amended, would enable an undertaker to go to arbitration should the parties fail to agree on the level of costs incurred by the authority. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those reassurances. Nevertheless, I should have thought that if people seek arbitration then the rules should be clearly spelt out for them in legislation. I was somewhat worried that the rules do not appear to be altogether clear in the Bill. It was in that spirit that I moved the amendment. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister said and perhaps we may be able to leave the matter as it stands. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 39, line 25, after ("prohibition") leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. In moving it I shall speak also to Amendment No. 121 because Amendment No. 120 is merely a small paving amendment to it. Clause 69(2) (b) makes absolutely clear the fact that a street authority can in
1080
certain circumstances recover from an undertaker the costs of traffic signing. The existing paragraph states that such a provision applies,
"in connection with the prohibition or restriction of traffic"
in order to facilitate street works. The amendment seeks to widen the provision so that it is not just the prohibition or restriction of traffic which is provided for but also the costs of signing a diversionary route. It is such an obvious and sensible amendment that I feel sure the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Clause 69 allows a traffic authority or concessionaire, who because of street works makes an order or issues a notice temporarily prohibiting or restricting traffic, to recover from the undertaker,
"the whole of the costs incurred by them in conjunction with or in consequence of the order or notice".
That form of words is wide enough to allow the recovery of any costs incurred by the authority or concessionaire in signing traffic diversions that are in consequence of the prohibition or restriction. Since the ability to recover costs is only activated by the making of an order or the issue of a notice for the temporary prohibition or restriction of traffic, it is unnecessary to include specific reference in subsection(2) to the costs of signing diversions of traffic. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be assured on the matter and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I have taken very careful note of the Minister's reply. I understood him to say that the words,
"prohibition or restriction of traffic"
include a diversionary route. I believe that the Minister quite definitely said that. I understand that the utilities are quite happy with the provision which I have put forward. However, in view of the Minister's assurance that the wording covers the signing of diversionary routes, I have no hesitation in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Clause 70 [Liability for cost of use of alternative route]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 39, line 26, after ("is") insert ("under any enactment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. In moving it, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 123. The amendment proposed may be perceived as being slightly mischievous. However, its purpose is to follow more closely the terms of the Highways Act 1980 which make clear that, in the case of a restriction, there must be a formal statutory order before an undertaker is fixed with the liability to indemnify the highway authority.
It is difficult to appreciate why there should be a departure from the position as set out in that Act. The proposal to give the street authority and the undertaker an opportunity to discuss and agree what

1081
is required before works are carried out—that is, works for which the undertaker will be paying—seems to me to be eminently reasonable.
I said in opening that the amendment may seem to be "slightly mischievous". I did so because one could envisage a situation where no discussion has taken place and where the highway authority has erected signs or caused diversions to be made along roads which it may desire to put into a better state. Consequently, it would be able, unfairly, to charge the undertaker for any further damage which may occur.
One has to appreciate the fact that when one is actually in the field, on the road so to speak, it is an individual working in a supervisory capacity—such as a foreman—who may determine such matters rather than an august body undertaking such discussions. Therefore, the amendments seek to bring some reasonableness into the matter by introducing the provision for discussions which will ensure that potential liability is dealt with before the works are carried out. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. As noble Lords will be aware, the clause as a whole is about the requirement on a utility to meet the cost of strengthening or repairing a road damaged as a result of a diversion. The cost is to be borne by the utilities. It is not unreasonable that the utilities should know what the cost will be before they embark on the work. It is in that spirit that the amendment is moved.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in addressing the first amendment, I do not understand why it is necessary to incorporate the phrase "under any enactment". I have heard nothing from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which provides any further and better particulars about that point.
On the second amendment, I agree with both noble Lords. The requirement is not unreasonable. We should underline the fact that the decision concerning the works to be undertaken should rest with the highway authority. It already has two limitations imposed upon how it can act. In subsection (1) there is already the reference to costs being reasonably incurred by highway authorities. That is buttressed by the arbitration provisions which have been inserted into the Bill. I am most grateful, as I have said before, to the Minister, for agreeing to that proposition which I made earlier in the proceedings.
I do not understand why it is necessary to incorporate the words "under any enactment", and perhaps the noble Lord will cast some light on that point when he replies.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, these two amendments seek in different ways to place limits on the powers of highway authorities under Clause 70. The first would restrict the highway authority's ability to recover costs it has incurred in association with the use of an alternative route as a result of street works. It attempts to do so by limiting the undertaker's liability to cases where use of a highway is restricted "under any enactment", a form of words used in Section 60 of the Highways Act 1980, which Clause 70 will replace, as my noble friend said.
1082
The inclusion of the words "under any enactment" is unnecessary since the use of a highway can be lawfully restricted or prohibited only by means of a temporary traffic order or similar instrument provided for in legislation. That answers the first amendment.
The second amendment would insert a new subsection. That would provide that, where a highway authority proposes to carry out strengthening or repair works to a highway used as an alternative route during street works, it must first consult the undertaker whose street works, it must first consult the undertaker whose street works led to the diversion.
However, the advance notice requirements under Clause 48 will in practice provide an opportunity for early discussion of planned street works, and a responsible highway authority would inform the undertaker concerned before carrying out consequential maintainance works on an alternative route. It would not be appropriate also to require consultation with the undertaker on the specific nature of the works of strengthening or repair which fall clearly within the responsibilities of the highway authority, the point by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
In the last resort, if there are unresolved disputes over claims for payment under this clause, there is provision for their determination by arbitration. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for reminding us of that point and for his word of thanks for the government amendment which brought about that provision. For those reasons, we cannot agree to my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister, especially for explaining the purpose of the first amendment. I am also grateful to him for drawing attention to the provisions of Clause 48 in respect of the second amendment. He referred to a "responsible authority". Earlier I said that there was a sense of mischievousness in the second amendment when I suggested that there may be some authorities that are less than responsible. However, he has put the matter more firmly into perspective. I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 40, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 127 [Liability for cost of use of alternative route]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 72, line 5, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Contributions to costs of making good long-term damage]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 40, line 27, at end insert:
("(6) If the Secretary of State has not made regulations under this section within three years of the commencement of this Part he shall lay before each House of Parliament an report setting out his reasons for not doing so.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the amendment because we are seeking to make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to make a report to Parliament if, within three years of the commencement of Parts III and IV, he has not made regulations under Clause 71. That report would give him an opportunity to explain why he has declined to do so.
Clause 71 makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the utilities to make payments to the street authority concerning costs incurred by the authority when it reconstructs or resurfaces a street. The objective is to provide the way by which street authorities may be compensated for the long-term damage which may be done to streets by excavation and street work activities undertaken by the utilities.
The question of cumulative long-term damage is a vexed and controversial one. Indeed, it merited a subject of its own in the Horne Report. The review undertaken by Horne came to the conclusion that it would be premature to embark upon a general system of compensating street authorities for long-term damage:
"until experience showed how successful the proposals that we have made in this report for an overall improvement of reinstatement standards have been. For this reason we do not recommend any compensation for possible long-term damage, although we do regard as important a monitoring of the situation as it develops, using assessment procedures such as those discussed"—
That refers to this chapter—
"We therefore recommend that, after experience has been gained, a review should be made of the way in which the formal specifications and the warranty periods have operated in order to assess the extent to which the arrangements have succeeded in monitoring, limiting and correcting structural damage".
The Government accepted that recommendation, but they thought that the necessary powers should be included in legislation to allow undertakers to be required to pay the costs of making good long-term damage to the road, if it was shown that such arrangements were warranted. So we have Clause 71 included in the Bill. I am informed that the local authority associations welcome that provision, combined with the requirement that the first set of regulations made under the clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I understand, and no doubt the Minister will be able to confirm this position, that officials from his department have discussed with representatives of the HAUC arrangements for monitoring the impact of the Bill. I understand that the arrangements are proceeding satisfactorily. I want to stress that the Home review included a second recommendation on
1084
that very issue which is not referred to in the Notes on Clauses prepared by the Department of Transport and helpfully provided by the Minister.
Home recommended:
"Existing procedures for assessing the residual life of pavements and for the assessment of maintenance needs should be exploited to monitor the effects of utility reinstatement on road damage and maintenance needs and costs".
Then the report went on:
"We see a need for planned fundamental research on the problems of reinstatement including field tests on the efficacy of alternative materials and working practices. But since the variables and the factors affecting performance are extraordinarily wide, such research needs to be carefully planned and guided … so that it may be concentrated on the most important aspects".
Again the Government accepted the recommendation; they accepted the need for the sort of research contemplated by Home in the area we are discussing. What I should like to know from the Minister—I think that this amendment provides a suitable opportunity which I hope he will take—is where progress on this recommendation stands. In the context of the controversial nature of this issue when it was originally proposed, that is important so far as the local highway authorities are concerned.
In putting forward this amendment I am not seeking to compel the Secretary of State to make regulations under the clause. What I am seeking to do is to ensure that the area we are considering is not forgotten or overlooked. The amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to report on progress three years after the commencement of this part of the Bill. Having regard to the controversy to which this gave rise and the importance of the matter so far as local highway authorities are concerned, I think that is a perfectly reasonable request. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is quite correct when he says that we are on a somewhat controversial issue in the claims that have been made that openings in the road, however well they are reinstated, cause long-term damage to the structure of the road. The Horne Report recommended that existing procedures for assessing the residual life of pavements should be used to monitor the effect of utility reinstatements on road damage. I can confirm to the noble Lord that this is currently being done. It also proposed that the new specifications for reinstatements should be monitored to assess to what extent they succeed in limiting structural damage.
Clause 71 has been included to allow the introduction of a scheme for undertakers to contribute to the costs of highway authorities in rectifying such damage. The Secretary of State does not intend to make regulations requiring contributions from undertakers until the results are known of research into long-term damage to the structure of streets caused by excavation works. It will also be prudent to allow some time to evaluate the effects of the reinstatement specifications in limiting long-term

1085
damage to roads. A new compensation scheme would not in any case be introduced before full consultations have been conducted with those likely to be affected by it.
I can confirm to the noble Lord that the department has been consulting the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee about the ongoing research into the link between utility works and long-term damage to roads. A review of the effect in practice of the new reinstatement specifications will be undertaken in association with the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee. Therefore, I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord that the use of the power under Clause 71 will be kept under continuous review.
In those circumstances, this amendment to insert an additional requirement to report on the reasons for not introducing a scheme would, I submit, serve little purpose. This area will certainly not be forgotten or overlooked. Of course it will be open to the noble Lord and others in this House and in another place to ask questions about how we are getting on in three years' time, or before or after.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when the Minister says that the amendment would serve little purpose, that infers that it may serve some purpose. If he implies that I might forget to raise certain questions in three years' time, that is perfectly possible, most particularly as this badge says that I actually expire in three years' time. It gives me only until June 1993. I understand that some noble Lords have until 1995 and some have no limitation at all. Therefore, there is a possibility that it may not be open to me to raise such questions.
What I am more concerned with is whether the Minister, or more likely his successor, will remember. I cannot see that it places him under any undue obligation to make a report in the circumstances reflected in the amendment; nor has the Minister indicated why it would impose any undue burdens on him to do that. But he has so far declined, and no doubt it is a matter that will be pursued elsewhere. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 [Records of location of apparatus]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 41, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) repeal or modify any enactment made or passed before the commencement of this Part which makes provision for the keeping of records of apparatus and appears to him to be superseded by or otherwise inconsistent with the provisions of this section; and

(b) make provision for applying in relation to records compiled under any such enactment the provisions of subsections (2) to (5) above and section 73 below.

An order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendment No. 127
1086
and speak to Amendment No. 128. These amendments are necessary in order to allow existing requirements on undertakers to keep records of their buried apparatus to be modified where necessary. Clause 72 places a new duty on all undertakers to keep up-to-date records of their apparatus in streets in a form and manner to be prescribed in regulations. In order to ensure consistency between the statutory requirements as they apply to apparatus in streets, it will therefore be necessary to amend, where appropriate, the various existing requirements which are to be found in utilities' enabling legislation or licences. These amendments will enable this to be done more easily, by order. They will also allow existing records to be treated as having been compiled in accordance with the provisions of the Bill where this is appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, do I understand that the Minister intends to undertake amendments to the appointments or licences, because the utilities are obviously somewhat worried by what is a perfectly sensible provision? I think noble Lords on all sides of the House would welcome the requirements for proper records to be kept as being a fundamental part of this whole process. One of the problems in the past has been that no one knew what lay under the road surface at any given point, and therefore this would be a step forward. However, the undertakers are a little worried that they might find themselves having to provide two sets of records —one under their appointments or licences and one under Clause 72. If the Government could reassure them on that subject it would be a great help.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, this is a perfectly reasonable amendment, particularly when one takes into account how important it is that there should be consistent records maintained right across the various utilities. The amendment is drafted in enabling form, and therefore the Secretary of State is permitted rather than required to repeal or modify existing legislation. Is the Minister able to confirm that it is his intention to use the powers provided by this clause in all circumstances where records are currently maintained in a different form under existing legislation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the problem that we face is that there are a variety of existing statutory requirements for the keeping of records that apply to different utilities. For example, Regulation 36 of the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 and Sections 165 and 166 of the Water Act are examples; but they are inconsistent, or silent, on matters such as the scaling of maps, the recording of service connections and the making available of records for inspection. Obviously it is important that this should be done on a consistent basis.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, we shall consult the utilities before modifying any existing requirements. The practical consequences of having two different standards will be fully explored, and I hope that it will not be necessary for the utilities to continue to keep two different standards. I hope that that also answers the point which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised.

1087
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 129 [Records of location of apparatus]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.128:
Page 73, line 9, at end insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) repeal or modify any enactment made or passed before the commencement of this Part which makes provision for the keeping of records of apparatus and appears to him to be superseded by or otherwise inconsistent with the provisions of this section; and

(b) make provision for applying in relation to records compiled under any such enactment the provisions of subsections (2) to (5) above and section 130 below.

An order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the street]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.129:
Page 42, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("are") and insert:
("( ) This section applies to works for road purposes other than major highway works (as to which see section 77 below).
( ) Where works to which this section applies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 129 I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 131. These drafting amendments make clear the relationship between the clause on works for roads purposes and the following clause on major highway works. It is provided that where an undertaker's apparatus is affected by major highway works, the provisions of Clause 77 are to be followed. In such cases the requirements contained in Clause 76 could conflict with the provisions. The amendment therefore provides that where works for roads purposes are also major highway works, Clause 76 shall not apply.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister says that these are drafting amendments. From the information I have, they go beyond mere drafting. The Minister referred to the interaction between Clauses 76 and 77. I shall therefore refer to each of those clauses.
Clause 77 deals with "diversionary works", the circumstances in which utility apparatus has to be moved because of highway authority works, such as the realignment of a junction. The clause provides for cost sharing in such circumstances between the street authority and the undertaker. Clause 76 provides for a utility to instruct the street authority to take steps to protect utility apparatus when undertaking road works which are likely to affect that apparatus.
I understand that concern has been expressed by local highway authorities that, having reached an agreement with the street authority under Clause 77, including arrangements for the protection of utility apparatus while work is being undertaken, a utility could nevertheless issue further additional requirements under the provisions of Clause 76.
As I understand it, the principle behind this government amendment is supported by the local
1088
authority associations. However, there is one significant difficulty with the approach that has been adopted. The intention seems to be clearly that the utility should not be able to issue requirements under Clause 76 if the works in question have been subject to an agreement under Clause 77. I understand that problems could arise as a result of the use of the phrase "major highway works" both in Clause 77 and now in the new subsection (1) of Clause 76.
I understand that the whole question of diversionary works is subject to detailed negotiation between the highway authorities and the utilities through the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee to which we have referred on previous occasions. The conclusion of satisfactory negotiations on this very controversial issue represents one of HAUC's major achievements. The HAUC diversionary works code of practice refers to "highway works" rather than "major highway works". The code of practice defines "highway works" as,
"involving any of the following or a combination thereof—widening, realignment and construction, alterations to carriageway width and the position of kerb lines".
I would appreciate the Minister's confirmation that the term "major highway works" in both Clauses 76 and 77 is intended to encompass all works which the diversionary works code of practice defined as constituting "highway works". In the amendment the words "major highway works" appear: the code of practice drawn up by the joint committee makes it absolutely clear that it refers to highway works. I should like clarification from the Minister on that important point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall study in detail what the noble Lord has said. The code of practice will reflect the wording of the Bill on "major highway works", but obviously I wish to see whether I can add anything and perhaps write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 42, line 42, at end insert:

("(a) give the person to whom the apparatus belongs not less than 7 working days notice of its intention to commence such works, giving all relevant particulars of the works, and

(aa) give such person reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 76 was introduced by the Government in Committee. It resulted from genuine concern among the utilities about the protection of their effects in the streets. There remains outstanding a matter of practical importance under the clause as amended.
It is reasonable, as the Bill requires, that undertakers should give notification to highway authorities if they are to undertake certain works involving the highway. It seems equally fair therefore that in order to protect their equipment and their installations, the utilities should have advance

1089
warning of the highway authority's intentions to carry out works which may affect or upset the equipment of the utilities.
All that the amendment does is to provide for a reciprocal arrangement. It is necessary, on a practical basis, for utilities and undertakings to formulate special requirements that may be necessary under the clause, not only to protect their apparatus but also to secure access to it if there were an emergency and for them to monitor the work being undertaken by the highway authority which may affect such apparatus.
The amendment causes no dilution of the effect of the clause which is generally welcome. It provides a reciprocal arrangement that is necessary as a matter of practicability. I know that the Minister and his officials have received notice of the utilities' concern in this area. Discussions have taken place and it would not be improper for me again to reiterate my thanks to officials for the amount of work that has been done to meet the utilities, not only on this subject but on other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have no quarrel with the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to achieve. However, as drafted the amendment gives rise to a number of problems which I shall try to illustrate. First, when the Minister introduced the new clause in Committee he sought to emphasise that he intended to reproduce in the Bill, as concerns works for road purposes, the duties that were prescribed in Clause 62 on street works. However, that clause does not set out any statutory notice period. Therefore the amendment would go beyond what the Minister had indicated he intended to do. I wanted to make that point, although the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is perfectly entitled to say that the situation as it obtains at the moment is unsatisfactory.
The second point I would make is that, as far as notice periods for streetworks are concerned, Clause 49 makes the provision that the normal notice period of not fewer than seven working days should obtain, but it permits different periods of notice to be prescribed for different descriptions of work, and the cases to be prescribed in which no notice at all is required. If notice periods were to be set out in relation to Clause 76, similar provisions to those contained in Clause 49 would be necessary.
Many works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus are the equivalent of the type of utility works which it has been accepted should be subject to three rather than seven days' notice. Moreover, there is a substantial volume of extremely minor highway authority works which the local authority associations would submit should not be subject to a statutory notice requirement.
The whole question of what categories of highway authority works should be subject to formal notice and what notice periods should apply to them is being examined presently by the HAUC notice periods working party.
It follows from that that we should allow this matter to be governed by the code of practice to be determined by the working party. If the Government
1090
deem it appropriate that formal notice periods should be set out in the Bill, a much more sophisticated set of provisions would be needed than those which are set out in these amendments. For those reasons, I would urge caution about them.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I would merely say that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I are very unsophisticated chaps and if the Government, with their great sophistication, can come up with a better amendment, we should be only too pleased to support it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot promise to come up with an amendment on this particular issue.
Clause 76 requires a street authority carrying out works for road purposes to give any person with apparatus likely to be affected the opportunity to monitor the works. The street authority must also comply with the undertakers' requirements for the protection of the apparatus that are reasonably practicable having regard to the time when they are made. No time limit for consulting affected undertakers is given. This amendment would require an authority executing such works to give seven working days' notice to an undertaker whose apparatus the works were likely to affect.
However, it is intended that regulations made under Clause 47 will require works for road purposes to be entered on the street works register, thereby giving undertakers adequate advance warning of works which could affect them. It is therefore unnecessary to introduce a notice requirement into Clause 76.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas and to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for pointing out that consultations are continuing in the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that that is in fact the best way forward in this matter.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I intend to let the matter rest there as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has almost said it all.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said. I have no wish to go beyond what the Government intended and am quite happy, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested, to leave the matter to the working party on codes of practice to see what they come up with.
This has been an interesting debate which I think has probably secured the interest of everybody involved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 133 [Works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the road]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 131
Page 75, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("are") and insert:
("( ) This section applies to works for road purposes other than major works for road purposes (as to which see section 134 below).

1091
( ) Where works to which this section applies").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 129. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 [Sharing of cost of necessary measures]:
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 44, line 2, after third ("works") insert ("82 per cent. of")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 132 standing in my name, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 133. These are probing amendments.
I understand that the utilities and the highway authorities have together agreed the proportion of allowable costs which each will bear. These are enshrined in the draft code of practice prepared by HAUC. The purpose of the amendment is to show the agreed proportions on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while it is true that this is a matter which has been discussed and on which agreement has been reached as far as the diversionary works code of practice is concerned, it is appropriate that the matter should be written on the face of the Bill, which is what the noble Lord is contending. I do not oppose it because I want to undo the working party's recommendations, but surely this is a matter where the percentage figures reached at the present time are likely to be varied at a future date. That would mean that we should have to have primary legislation to do that. With respect to the noble Lord, I feel that that is unnecessary. Consequently, I should have thought the best way of proceeding with this would be by way of regulations, which I suspect the Minister has in mind.
I should like the Minister to give the House an assurance that the regulations which would be issued under Clause 78 will implement the agreement reached in the working party. I am almost convinced that the answer must be in the affirmative.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as my noble friend said when moving the amendment, this would include on the face of the Bill the agreed proportions in which the costs of diversionary works associated with major highway works are to be borne by the authorities and the undertakers. Following a suggestion in the Government's response to the Horne Report, lengthy negotiations took place between the parties concerned. It was eventually agreed that 82 per cent. of the costs of diversionary works should be borne by the authority promoting the works and 18 per cent. by the undertaker affected by them. The Government have made clear that the proportions of 82 per cent. and 18 per cent. will be prescribed in the first regulations to be made under this clause. I can give that assurance to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
However—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—by including this provision on the face of the Bill, the amendment would have the unwelcome effect of making it very difficult to alter
1092
these proportions if it proved necessary or desirable to do so at a future date. The ability to prescribe these in regulations would retain a degree of flexibility which has been repeated elsewhere in the Bill.
With that assurance I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I take it that any subsequent variation would be anticipated to be by agreement between the parties; but if there were no agreement, would the arbitration provisions apply? I wonder whether the Minister could answer that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give a categorical answer to that now. I would rather reflect on it. My impression is that they would. I hope that any change in the proportions would be made by agreement between the parties. I understand the negotiations were long and in no way easy, as may have been the impression given this afternoon. But I should prefer to check on the point made by the noble Lord.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his initial support for my amendment. I quite understand the problem that if something goes wrong we should need more legislation. That is the last thing we want, with the burden we have had in the past few years.
I thank my noble friend for his assurances. I am sure that everybody would be satisfied with the assurances that have been given. This has been a useful debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 44, line 20, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135 [Sharing of cost of necessary measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 76, line 28, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Highway authorities, highways and related matters]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 136 to 139:
Page 44, line 31, leave out from ("highway") to end of line 32.
Page 44, line 40, at end insert:
("or works of any corresponding description executed in relation to a street which is not a highway.").
Page 44, line 42, leave out ("for road purposes").
Page 44, line 43, at end insert ("in relation to a highway which consists of or includes a carriageway").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 136 to 139 en bloc and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 140 and 141. The amendments are necessary in order to correct an anomaly under Clause 79. They extend the meaning of "works for road purposes" to include maintenance and improvement works on all streets. Under Clause 79 as presently written works of that nature in highways which are not streets or which do not include a carriageway would be excluded from the controls under the Bill. That would have resulted in utilities being denied the protection afforded to them under Clause 76 where such works are carried out, for example, in private access roads or pedestrian zones. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 136 [Roads authorities, roads and related matters]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment Nos. 140 and 141:
Page 77, line 5, leave out ("for road purposes").
Page 77, line 6, at end insert ("in relation to a road which consists of or includes a carriageway").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 86 [Works affecting level crossings or tramways]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 48, line 20, at end insert ("or guided busway").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 142 I should like to speak to Amendment No. 143, also in the names of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and to government Amendments Nos. 172 to 175.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the provisions of Clause 86 apply in relation to guided busways as well as to tramways. Noble Lords will recall that at Committee stage when the Government moved an amendment replacing the phrase "tramline" with "tramway" a query was raised as to whether the clause would cover guided busways as well as tramways. The amendments that I have put forward endeavour to resolve the problem by referring specifically to guided busways in Clause 86. The government amendments deal with the problem by including a definition of tramway in Clause 97, which is the definitions clause, and in the equivalent Scottish clause. That is helpful but there is one problem which is raised by the Government's definition and on which I should appreciate the views of the Minister.
The problem arises from a fundamental difference between tramways and guided busways. Both tramways and guided busways can be located along a conventional road, for example, along a central reservation. In many locations, when a tram is not using the tramlines the tramway can be occupied by any other road vehicle. That is not generally the case with a guided busway where the nature of the construction prevents it. Presumably, in deciding to incorporate guided busways within the definition of tramways the Government and their lawyers have
1094
considered that difference, but confirmation from the Government on that point would be extremely helpful.
I understand that the National Joint Utilities Group also feels that without a definition of a guided busway it is difficult to decide whether to support the amendment. The government amendments, with their definition, are extremely helpful but I should appreciate the Government's views on the problem that I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, although I have added my name to the amendment I feel that the Government's amendments are more all-embracing. Subject to the reservations raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I believe that they are to be preferred to our amendments.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, say that on many occasions when a tram is not using the tramlines the tramway can be occupied by another road vehicle. I hope that the converse is also true. It would be unwise for a vehicle to occupy a tramway when a tram is using it.
The utilities are right to say that there is a weakness in our amendment in that we do not spell out what a guided busway is. Because the Government's amendments are more all-embracing noble Lords would be wise to support them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, naturally I feel that the definition contained in the Government's amendments is better than that proposed by the noble Lord. Our definition of tramway is considered wide enough to embrace trams, trolley vehicles and street-running light railway systems as well as guided busways.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the definition of tramway in the government amendments meets his concerns. I hope that when we come to the government amendments they will be accepted.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, with that helpful explanation I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I echo the views of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and when we come to the government amendments we shall support them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Clause 87 [Power of street authority to undertake street works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 144 to 146:
Page 49, line 11, after ("authority") insert ("or district council").
Page 49, line 12, after ("authority") insert ("or council").
Page 49, line 17, leave out ("street authority") and insert ("authority or council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 144 to 146 and also speak to Amendments Nos. 147 to 149. The amendments build on an amendment that I moved at Committee stage in response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, at Second

1095
Reading. They extend to non-metropolitan district councils the right to carry out street works on behalf of an undertaker. That will allow the direct services organisations of all district councils to tender for work if invited to do so by undertakers. In many cases non-metropolitan district councils which are not themselves street authorities act as agents for local highway authorities for the maintenance of roads. Where such councils have expertise in excavation and reinstatement work it is only right that they should be allowed to make it available to utilities on a commercial basis. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the way in which the Minister has responded to the representations which have been made to him, particularly by the Association of District Councils. His response in putting down the amendments is eloquent testimony to that.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 144 [Power of road works authority to undertake road works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 147 to 149:
Page 81, line 11, after ("authority") insert ("or district council").
Page 81, line 12, after ("authority") insert ("or council").
Page 81, line 17, leave out ("road works authority") and insert ("authority or council").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 89 [Recovery of costs or expenses]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.150:
Page 49, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) Where under any provision of this Part a person is entitled in certain circumstances to recover costs or expenses incurred by him in executing works or taking other steps, any dispute as to the existence of those circumstances or as to the amount recoverable shall be determined by arbitration.
This applies whether the provision is expressed as conferring a right to recover, or as imposing a liability to reimburse or indemnify or to bear the cost, but does not apply in relation to a provision expressed as providing for the charging of a fee or conferring a right to compensation or in relation to section 71 (contributions to cost of making good long-term damage to the street).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 150 with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 146 [Recovery of costs or expenses]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.151:
Page 81, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) Where under any provision of this Part a person is entitled in certain circumstances to recover costs or expenses incurred by him in executing works or taking other steps, any dispute as to the existence of those circumstances or as to the amount recoverable shall be determined by arbitration.
This applies whether the provision is expressed as conferring a right to recover, or as imposing a liability to reimburse or indemnify or to bear the cost, but does not apply in relation to a provision expressed as providing for the
1096
charging of a fee or conferring a right to compensation or in relation to section 128 (contribution to the cost of making good long-term damage to the road).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Service of notices and other documents]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.152:
Page 49, line 41, leave out from ("form") to end of line 35 on page 50 and insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the manner of service of notices and other documents required or authorised to he served for the purposes of this Part.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 152 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 153. The amendments replace the detailed provisions in subsections (2) to (6) of Clause 90 which lay down requirements concerning the service of notices and other documents under this part of the Bill. The requirements are similar to those contained in the 1950 Act and are mainly concerned with the detail of how written documents are to be served. Since the great majority of transactions will in future be required to be carried out electronically by means of the computerised street works register a substantial provision of this kind is not strictly necessary. In its place there will be a simple and flexible regulation-making power. That will allow requirements better to reflect technological developments and practice now and in the future as well as simplifying the statute. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 147 [Service of notices and other documents]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.153:
Page 81, line 41, leave out from ("form") to end of line 36 on page 82 and insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the manner of service of notices and other documents required or authorised to he served for the purposes of this Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Exclusion of inconsistent special enactments, &c]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 154 to 156:
Page 52, line 6, at end insert:
(4A) The Secretary of State may by order amend or repeal, or make such provision as he thinks fit for preserving the effect of, any special enactment passed or made before the commencement of this Part (not being an enactment to which subsection (1), (2) or (3) applies) which proceeds by reference to any provision of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 or any other enactment repealed by this Act.
Subject to any order under this subsection, any such enactment shall continue to have effect as if the provision referred to had not been repealed.").
Page 52, line 7, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) In this section "special enactment" includes a public general enactment—

(a) in relation to the passing of which any of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords or the House of Commons relating to Private Business applied, or

1097

(b) to the extent that it is incorporated or applied for the purposes of a special enactment.").

Page 52, line 11, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 154 to 156 inclusive and speak to Amendments Nos. 157 to 171. This group of amendments extends the provision relating to exclusion of inconsistent enactments to cover references to the 1950 Act which contain a wide variety of certain hybrid public general Acts. The revised Clause 94 would empower the Secretary of State to make orders amending, repealing or preserving the effect of any special enactment in which such reference is made. This would enable references to the 1950 Act to be dealt with as appropriate to preserve their effect after the Bill has become law.
Amendments Nos. 154 to 163 contain the order-making power, and Amendments Nos. 155 to 164 will allow private provisions of hybrid Acts to be treated as special enactments for the purpose of this clause. Amendments Nos. 156 and 165 will apply the negative resolution procedure and the provision of Schedule 5 to orders made under this power. There are six minor consequential amendments to Schedule 5 and the Scottish equivalent, Schedule 7. These are drafting amendments which correct or insert appropriate references to the main clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Procedure for making orders under s.94]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 157 to 162:
Page 99, line 28, leave out ("(exclusion of inconsistent enactments, &c.)") and insert ("(effect of Part III on existing special enactments)").
Page 100, line 2, column 1, after ("Order") insert ("under section 94(4) (a)").
Page 100, line 6, column 1, after ("Order") insert ("under section 94(4) (b)").
Page 100, line 9, column 1, after ("Order") insert ("under section 94(4) (c)").
Page 100, line 12, column 1, after ("Order") insert ("under section 94(4) (d)").
Page 100, line 16, at end insert:
("Order under section 94(4A) amending or repealing or preserving effect of enactment referring to repealed enactment
Any person whose interests are affected by the proposed provision.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 151 [Exclusion of inconsistent special enactments, &c.]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 163 to 165:
Page 84, line 12, at end insert:
("(4A) The Secretary of State may by order amend or repeal, or make such provision as he thinks fit for preserving the effect of, any special enactment passed or made before the commencement of this Part (not being an enactment to which subsection (1), (2) or (3) above applies) which proceeds by reference to any provision of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 or any other enactment repealed by this Act.
1098
Subject to any order under this subsection, any such enactment shall continue to have effect as if the provision referred to had not been repealed.").
Page 84, line 13, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) In this section "special enactment" includes a public general enactment—

(a) in relation to the passing of which any of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords or the House of Commons relating to Private Business applied, or

(b) to the extent that it is incorporated or applied for the purposes of a special enactment.").

Page 84, line 17, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("this section").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Procedure for making orders under s.151]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 166 to 171:
Page 104, line 20, leave out ("(exclusion of existing enactments, &c.)") and insert ("(effect of Part IV on existing special enactments)").
Page 104, line 36, column 1, after ("Order") insert ("under section 151(4) (a)").
Page 104, line 40, column 1, after ("Order") insert ("under section 151(4) (b)").
Page 104, line 43, column 1, after ("Order") insert ("under section 151(4) (c)").
Page 104, line 46, column 1, after ("Order") insert ("under section 151(4) (d)").
Page 104, line 50, at end insert:
("Order under section 151(4A) amending or repealing or preserving effect of enactment referring to repealed enactment
Any person whose interests are affected by the proposed provision.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 97 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment Nos. 172 and 173:
Page 53, line 20, leave out ("paragraph (a) of").
Page 53, leave out lines 32 to 36 and insert:
(""tramway" means a system, mainly or exclusively for the carriage of passengers, using vehicles guided, or powered by energy transmitted, by rails or other fixed apparatus installed exclusively or mainly in a highway;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 172 and 173. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 142.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 154 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 174 and 175:
Page 85, line 27, leave out ("paragraph (a) of").
Page 85, leave out lines 38 to 42 and insert:
(""tramway" means a system, mainly or exclusively for the carriage of passengers, using vehicles guided, or powered by energy transmitted, by rails or other fixed apparatus installed exclusively or mainly in a road;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 155 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 176:

1099
Page 86, line 40, leave out ("100(2)") and insert ("100(4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this minor amendment is to correct the erroneous reference to the definition of road managers given in subsection (4), not subsection (2), of Clause 100. I beg to move this drafting amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 156 [Offences by bodies corporate or Scottish partnerships]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 87, line 14, after ("of") insert (", or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 177 is also a minor technical amendment which brings subsection (2) into line with subsection (1). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 87, line 16, at end insert:
("(2A) For the purposes of this section it shall be the duty of all undertakers to include in their annual Directors Report a list of all persons mentioned in subsection (1) above and their duties and responsibilities in relation to the management and control of the undertaking and in relation to any street works.
(2B) Failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) shall render the undertaker concerned liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and to the forfeiture of any street works licence or licences held by them.
(2C) Section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 shall apply to subsection (2B) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated a similar issue to Amendment No. 178 on 6th December when I moved Amendment No. 193. The clause itself introduces legal liability for offences which may be committed by bodies corporate or Scottish partnerships. To include that provision as far as corporate bodies are concerned is to be welcomed, and it should have the effect of concentrating minds on questions of safety, efficiency and the quality of operations carried out in relation to roadworks.
There can be no doubt that the reason we have placed a great deal of emphasis in this Bill on these provisions is that we recognise the potential for danger to road users and road workers. What has happened is that similar accountability for the safety of workers is introduced by the Health and Safety at Work Act. Therefore, a parallel accountability to cover the safety of road users is very timely.
But there is a distinction to be drawn between corporate accountability and good practice emerging out of individual accountability. I am advised that an example of this is contained in a report of the county surveyor of Lancashire. He reported to his committee that a survey by his inspectors showed that only 32 per cent. of temporary traffic signals at roadworks were operating lawfully. Even worse, only one in 14 sets of traffic lights operated by public utilities were operating lawfully. The report said that this confirmed
1100
reservations which had been expressed about their operation in the past. If I may say so, it did so very vividly indeed.
In this amendment we seek to identify the officers who may be responsible within an organisation, to define their direct responsibilities concerning the safety and efficiency of street works carried out by the utility, and to publish them in the directors' annual report and accounts. The fact that a statement will be publicly available defining an individual's responsibilities would, in my view, go a very long way towards ensuring that safety and efficiency standards are upheld. I think the illustration I have given adds emphasis to the request we are making as far as the Government are concerned. I hope that the Minister will reply positively to what I have just said. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, although the first part of this amendment is different in form from that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in Committee, our objections to it remain much the same. In our view, it would not increase the accountability of large utility companies in any material way to impose a new requirement to include in undertakers' annual reports detailed information about the responsibilities of individual officers and employees. There is a whole series of criminal sanctions against an undertaker who fails to comply with his duties under the Bill. I dare say that most of those would cover the points which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, gave in his example.
Clause 156 makes clear that where an offence by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent, connivance, or through the neglect of, a certain individual, the individual and the body corporate are guilty of the offence and may be proceeded against. As regards the general public, the requirement under Clause 58 of the Bill to provide signs at the site of all roadworks stating who is responsible for the works and giving a 24-hour telephone contact number will do a great deal to improve accountability.
I hope that the utilities will also consider ways of making better known individual management responsibility for the execution of street works. I am afraid that the noble Lord's amendment would not achieve that or allow offences committed under the Bill to be attributed to particular individuals in practice. However, it would impose an administrative burden with little practical effect. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will understand our arguments and feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is a question of judgment: the Minister takes one view and I take another. I think it would redound to good practice within a corporate entity if these records were kept. What is more, I think it would redound to the advantage of the corporate entity in its public relations if that were done. I am sorry that the Minister takes a different view, but I do not intend to press the matter at this stage and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1101
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 106, line 21, at end insert:
("(c) for payment of an additional fee in cases where permission is not sought in advance or the terms of the conditions have not been fully complied with.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this amendment we are seeking to permit the Minister to make provision by regulations for the payment of a fee over and above that charged for occupation of the highway by the owner of a skip, scaffolding or builders' materials in cases where previous permission is not sought from the local authority, or where the terms of the permission have simply not been complied with.
This amendment would give highway authorities the power to levy a penalty charge for positioning objects on the highway in situations which are dangerous. I believe that the threat of a charge of this character would provide an incentive to those who wish to place objects on the road to apply for a licence from the highway authority and, once having obtained that licence, to abide strictly by the conditions of the licence. The ability to levy a penalty charge would allow the authority to recover its costs in cases where it has to remove objects from the highway on grounds of road safety.
Under the law as it stands at the present, highway authorities have power to permit the deposit of items on the highway in a reasonable and safe fashion. They can also remove objects which are deposited in a way that is likely to be hazardous. However, if an authority removes items because it deems it appropriate to do so in the interests of road safety, the only way in which it can recover its costs is by litigation in the civil courts. That is costly, difficult and time-consuming. I believe that something ought to be done about that situation.
The amendment would permit highway authorities in effect to issue fixed penalty notices for failure to apply for prior permission or failure to comply with the conditions of a licence that has been granted. I believe that a penalty charge will provide some disincentive to aberrant activity of the kind that I have mentioned. If an object has to be removed from the highway and a charge by way of penalty imposed, the level of the charge can be fixed to ensure that the highway authority is able to cover the costs of enforcement. I believe that that is perfectly reasonable.
When the government amendment was debated at Committee stage the Minister was pressed to give an undertaking that any revenue generated by the fee for the occupation of the highway should be made available for additional transport investment and to cover the highway authority costs of administering the scheme Clearly, if there is a fixed penalty scheme the advantages would disappear unless local authorities were enabled to keep the fees. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be in a position today to confirm that
1102
local authorities will be, at the very least, permitted to keep sufficient revenue to cover their administrative and enforcement costs. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, these amendments seek to change the basis of the new provisions to be inserted in the Highways Act 1980 to charge builders and developers for their occupation of road space. They would allow the scheme for charging set out in regulations to include provision for the payment of additional fees where the occupation of the highway proceeded without permission or in contravention of the terms and conditions of a permission.
I have some sympathy with the thinking behind this amendment. It is clearly important that people placing skips, scaffolding or builders' materials in the road should not be allowed to escape paying any charges due. However, Sections 139, 160 and 171 of the Highways Act 1980 already make it an offence to place those things in a highway without the consent of the highway authority or without complying with certain conditions. In each case, appropriate penalties are provided for those guilty of an offence. For example, a person who erects scaffolding without authority which obstructs the highway is liable to a fine of up to £2,000. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to introduce a separate system of penalty fees under the charging scheme in those circumstances. I believe that there is already sufficient disincentive to misbehave on those concerned. I can confirm that local authorities will be allowed at least to cover their reasonable costs in administering any charging scheme. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the local authorities. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and most particularly for his concluding remarks which I think the authorities will find a very positive response. The question of appropriate penalties misses the point which I made earlier about the difficulties that can sometimes arise in practice not only of causing those penalties to take effect but also, I suspect, finding the people who are responsible and bringing them to court. Therefore, the whole process is long drawn out and costly. Indeed, it may be nugatory except for the removal of the offending item.
There may have been some value in being able to take immediate action. I do not say that all the difficulties will have disappeared by reason of that. Some of them will continue. Nevertheless, the immediacy of being able to do something would have been a more appropriate remedy in certain cases.
I have no doubt that this is an issue to which another place will return in due course. For the moment, I thank the Minister for the concluding part of his remarks and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 106, line 45, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which is tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 182.
In the earlier debate reference was made to provision for highway authorities to be permitted to charge builders for the occupation of road space by skips, scaffolding and building materials. This amendment continues that discussion. The local authority associations consider that they should also be free to charge for the occupation of road space as a result of the erection of hoardings round a building site. These amendments are therefore very much of a probing category, because it is unclear whether Section 6 of Schedule 8 makes such a provision. It would be of assistance if the Minister could indicate whether charging for the occupation of road space as a result of the erection of hoardings is acceptable; whether it is currently provided for in Section 6 of Schedule 8 and, if not, whether he would be prepared to accept an amendment to clarify the position.
This is a small matter but one that the local authority associations consider to be rather important. It is again a matter of charging and whether Schedule 8 provides for it. If not, we ask whether the Minister will make provision for such an amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can satisfy the noble Lord very briefly on this matter. A hoarding that encroaches on the highway would fall within the definition of a relevant structure under Section 169 of the Highways Act and so would already be within the scope of the new Section 171A as drafted. Therefore the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. Naturally I shall read carefully what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 182 and 183 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 184 and 185:
Page 110, line 33, after ("section") insert ("4(1) or").
Page 111, line 30, after ("prohibit") insert ("temporarily").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving these amendments I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 190 to 196, 198, 199, 201 to 206 and 208. They are all minor technical amendments to improve the drafting of this rather complicated schedule. Some of them remove superfluous passages from the present version. Others are minor corrections of detail. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 186 and 187:
Page 113, line 3, leave out from first ("Act") to end of line.
Page 113, line 5, leave out ("or directions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 197, 200 and 219. These
1104
amendments represent further thoughts about speed limits on special roads. We may want to impose 30 mph limits on certain special roads—for example, tunnels—authorised under Part I of the Bill. However, we have concluded that the right way to do so is not by making them "restricted roads" under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 188 and 189:
Page 114, line 1, leave out ("or") and insert (", the Countryside Council for Wales and").
Page 114, line 2, after ("may") insert ("each").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 221. These amendments bring the schedule into line with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which, among many other things, established a Countryside Council for Wales and transferred to it powers of the Countryside Commission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 190 to 196:
Page 114, line 28, at end insert ("and for "and to execute" substitute "and execute".").
Page 114, line 47, leave out paragraph 38 and insert:
("38. In section 31 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (byelaws with respect to roads used as playgrounds), in subsection (1), for the words from "by a local authority" to "have power to" substitute "under section 29 of this Act, the local traffic authority may".").
Page 115, line 29, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
Page 116, line 5, after ("to") insert (""highways" or, in Scotland,").
Page 117, line 19, leave out paragraph 52 and insert:
("52.—(1) Section 69 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (placing of traffic signs in connection with exercise of other powers) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "highway authority" or, in Scotland, "roads authority" substitute "traffic authority"; and

(b) for "the roads" or, in Scotland, "a road" substitute "the road".

(3) In subsection (2) for "highway authority" or, in Scotland, "roads authority" substitute "traffic authority".
(4) In subsection (3) for "highway authority" or, in Scotland, "local roads authority" substitute "local traffic authority".").
Page 117, leave out line 27 and insert (""local roads authority" substitute "local traffic authority".").
Page 117, line 30, leave out from ("Scotland,") to end and insert (" "local roads authority" substitute "local traffic authority".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 184. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 118, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert:
("(4) For subsection (3) substitute—
"(3) A special road is not a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 on or after the date declared by the traffic authority, by notice published in the

1105
prescribed manner, to be the date on which the special road, or the relevant part of the special road, is open for use as a special road.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 186. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 198 to 206:
Page 118, leave out lines 26 to 28.
Page 118, leave out lines 37 to 39.
Page 119, line 6, at end insert:
("62A. In section 86 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits for particular classes of vehicles), omit subsection (4) (which relates to special roads).").
Page 119 line 23, after ("any") insert ("other").
Page 119, line 24, after ("road") insert ("at that point").
Page 119, line 24, at end insert ("other").
Page 119, line 26, leave out ("local").
Page 119, line 26, leave out ("a local") and insert ("an").
Page 119, line 45, after ("Scotland") insert ("means").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 184. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 120, leave out lines 9 to 23 and insert:
(""Traffic authorities.
121A .—(1) The Secretary of State is the traffic authorityߞ

(a) for every highway in England and Wales for which he is the highway authority within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980, and

(b) for every road in Scotland for which he is the roads authority within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

(2) In Greater London, the council of the London borough or the Common Council of the City of London are the traffic authority for all roads in the borough or, as the case may be, in the City for which the Secretary of State is not the traffic authority.
(3) In England and Wales outside Greater London, the, council of the county or metropolitan district are the traffic authority for all roads in the county or, as the case me y be, the district for which the Secretary of State is not the traffic authority.
(4) In Scotland, the regional or islands council are the traffic authority in relation to all roads within their area for which the Secretary of State is not the traffic authority.
5) In this Act "local traffic authority" means a traffic authority other than the Secretary of State.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides a better definition of a traffic authority. The significant difference from the provision as drafted is that a local traffic authority is responsible not only for highways but for any road in its area except a road for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980. Local authorities' current powers under Sections 1, 6 and 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 extend to certain roads which are not highways. The new section 121A places beyond doubt that they still do. In Scotland the effect is the same although the terminology is different.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 121, line 30, after ("(3)") insert (", and in paragraph 3(2),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 184. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 209 to 218:
Page 128, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) In section 23 (power to lay mains), at end insert—
"(4) In the case of works in respect of which notice is required to be given under section 106 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (notice of starting date of road works), notice duly given to a person in accordance with that section and section 147 of that Act (service of notice) shall be treated as reasonable notice for the purposes of subsection (1) above.".").
Page 128, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) In section 103 (requirement for all notices to be in writing), after "shall" insert ", subject to section 23(4) of and paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 3 to this Act,"").
Page 128, line 28, leave out ("paragraph 2(2) of").
Page 128, line 29, after ("pipes)") insert ("—
(a) in paragraph 2(2)").
Page 128, line 31, at end insert:
("(b) in paragraph 4(1) for the words "not less than 72 hours'" substitute the word "such" and, the end of that sub-paragraph add the words "as would require to be given by an undertaker under section 106 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (notice of starting date of works) in accordance with that section and with section 147 of that Act (service of notice)".").
Page 129, line 19, leave out from ("In") to ("sub-paragraph") in line 21 and insert ("Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 (the telecommunications code), paragraph 1 (interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) In").
Page 129, line 39, after ("In") insert ("the same Schedule, in").
Page 130, line 3, leave out ("paragraph 9 (street works), in sub-paragraph (1)") and insert ("the same Schedule, paragraph 9 (street works) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), after "over," insert "upon,", and").
Page 130, line 10, at end insert:
(" .—(1) In the same Schedule, paragraph 23 (undertaker's works affecting telecommunication apparatus) is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph (2) (notice to be given to operator of telecommunication system) insert—
"(2A) In the case of works in respect of which notice is required to be given under section 49 or 106 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (notice of starting date of street works or, in Scotland, road works), notice duly given to a person under that section shall be treated as a notice duly given to him under sub-paragraph (2) above.".")
(3) At the end of sub-paragraph (4) (counter-notice by operator) insert—
"Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (2A) above notice of less than 10 days is treated as a notice duly given under sub-paragraph (2), a counter-notice may not be given after the works have been substantially begun.".").
Page 132, line 20, at end insert:
(".—(1) In the same Schedule, paragraph 3 (execution of works affecting certain descriptions of apparatus) is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph (3) (notice to be given to undertaker) insert—
"(3A) In the case of works in respect of which notice is required to be given under section 49 or 106 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (notice of starting date of street works or, in Scotland, road works), notice duly given to a person under that section shall be treated as a notice duly given to him under sub-paragraph (3) above.".
(3) At the end of sub-paragraph (5) (counter-notice by undertaker) insert—
"Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (3A) above notice of less than seven days is treated as a notice duly given under sub-paragraph (3), a counter-notice may not be given after the works have been substantially begun.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these 10 minor amendments are necessary in order to remove some inconsistencies between the street works provisions of the Bill and the utilities' enabling legislation. The five amendments standing in my name only apply to England, Wales and Scotland. They will allow a notice given under Clause 49 (Clause 106 for Scotland) to be deemed as duly given for the purposes of notice requirements in the relevant telecommunications and electricity legislation. They will also allow telecommunications and electricity undertakers to serve the counter-notices provided for in their enabling legislation within the timescale provided for under the Bill in cases where this is at variance with the individual notice requirements that they contain.
The five amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde apply to Scotland only and make similar provision in relation to the Water (Scotland) Act 1980. The amendments to telecommunications legislation will also bring the definition in the telecommunications code of telecommunications apparatus "in" a street in line with the definition of "in" in Clause 97. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 134, line 15, column 3, leave out ("82(3)") and insert ("86(4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 186. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 135, line 5, at end insert:
1108

("1988c. 53.

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

In Part I of Schedule 2, the entry relating to section 30(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

In Schedule 3—

(a) in the entry relating to section 29(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the words "outside Greater London";

(b) the entry relating to section 30(5) of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on the changes to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 under paragraph 37 of Schedule 8. It extends Section 29 to roads in London as well as outside and removes Section 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 135, line 24, at end insert:

("1990 c. 43.

Environmental Protection Act 1990.

In Schedule 8, in para—graph 7, the words from "and in subsection (4)" to the end.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 188. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

The HIV/AIDS Epidemic
5.7 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock rose to call attention to the current state of the HIV/AIDS epidemic worldwide and to the measures required to limit its spread in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: This is the third debate that I have introduced in your Lordships' House on the subject of HIV and AIDS. The last occasion was 3rd February 1988; therefore, a further review of the subject is appropriate if not overdue. I am grateful to the Chief Whip for making the time available.
I assume that most noble Lords present, and members of the Government in particular, are aware of the global and national picture. I shall keep my statistical remarks short, but I must briefly set the scene. At the end of 1990 the World Health Organisation estimated that about 1 million cases of adult AIDS had occurred worldwide. There were an estimated 8 million to 10 million cases of adult HIV infection across the globe. It is estimated that more than 5 million of those infections have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa where heterosexual transmission is the predominant mode of spread. Globally, heterosexual transmission by vaginal intercourse accounts for the largest number of infections.
The World Health Organisation predicts that by the year 2000 approximately 25 to 35 million people will have been infected with HIV, including 10 million children. On average children born with HIV become sick more rapidly than infected adults so that most of

1109
those 10 million will be dead before the decade is out. Many children born to infected mothers are not themselves infected but face a different problem. They will be orphaned and will require support, care and education. I believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark will touch on that subject in relation to the horrendous figures in Uganda. I believe the Overseas Development Agency is playing an important role; I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell the House about that. Will she also tell us the level of support provided by the Government to the WHO global programme on AIDS and say whether it will be continued at a comparable level?
Worryingly, HIV is spreading to areas not thought previously to have been much affected; that is, the Middle East and South East Asia, especially Thailand. Thailand saw its first AIDS case only in 1984. Prostitutes and injecting drug users have been the main channels there. India is also becoming seriously affected. More than 100,000 US citizens have died from AIDS since the disease was first recognised in 1981 and approximately 1 million in the United States are currently infected by HIV.
Projections of cumulative AIDS cases within the EC to the end of 1991 lie in the region of 60,000 to 78,000. Comparisons with other European Community countries show that the United Kingdom, with 55 AIDS cases per million of population, comes well behind France, Italy and Spain and well below the EC average of 99 per million. That is a cause for congratulation but not complacency. According to the last set of quarterly figures released for the United Kingdom on 21st January, the cumulative total of AIDS cases reported is 4,098. Of those, 2,256, or 55 per cent. are known to have died. The cumulative total of HIV positive reports for the United Kingdom is 15,166 which is likely to be substantially less than the true number of infected people.
Within those raw figures, there lurk some interesting developments which we must watch carefully. First, the number of new cases of AIDS reported in the fourth quarter of last year—namely, 300—is less than for the previous quarter. At the same time, one should note that the average survival time from the onset of full AIDS has increased from 10 to 20 months. That is probably due to earlier and increasingly sophisticated use of therapeutic drugs, principally AZT. That has important implications for the pattern of treatment and the distribution of funds to which I shall refer shortly.
The next point is that in the UK, Europe and the USA, the proportion of cases acquired through heterosexual intercourse is increasing every year. In the UK alone the most recent CDSC figures indicate that the number of heterosexually acquired AIDS cases rose by 85 per cent. from 145 to 268 and accounted for 9.6 per cent. of newly reported cases in the UK in 1990. During the same period the total of positive HIV tests attributable to heterosexual contact rose by 50 per cent. from 829 to 1,247. It is also significant that over 1,500 women have now been reported HIV positive in the UK. Cases of AIDS in women increased during 1990 by 78 per cent. from 114 to 203.
As your Lordships will be aware, there has been some controversy in the press and the media as regards the heterosexual figures. They have been assailed as insignificant or misleading. I have no intention of being apocalyptic. One has to be clear that they represent a gradually increasing proportion of overall totals which are mercifully less than originally forecast.
There is an argument that the threat to heterosexuals is much increased by the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases—the so-called co-factors—which are prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa and to a lesser extent here. That is true. However, it should not blind us to the fact that transmission can and does take place without such co-factors. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS produced a pamphlet which gives a dispassionate and objective view. I shall be happy to send a copy to any noble Lord who has not received one. Obviously the conclusion one reaches is an important determinant of the messages sent to young people and the population at large.
Having outlined the general and national picture, I wish to turn to some specific problems. There are a number and I can touch upon them only cursorily. However, I believe that other noble Lords may develop some of them more fully. I shall ask the noble Baroness one or two questions.
First, as regards the strategy and organisation of our AIDS approach, it has always been argued by government that AIDS should be contained within the NHS and that there is no need for a strategic body like the National AIDS Commission in the USA. I remember advancing the contrary view to Tony Newton in a debate back in 1986 at London University, without success. It is true that we are extremely fortunate to have the NHS which enables us to confront this deadly disease. On the other hand, AIDS undoubtedly faces us with issues broader than those contained within our health service. Local authorities and voluntary bodies play an increasing part and there are also problems as regards education, the law, employment and criminal justice which do not fit within the NHS model.
It is true that there are a number of advisory committees, the principal of which are the Expert Advisory Group on AIDS, the Interdepartmental Group on AIDS, Co-ordination of AIDS Public Education and the AIDS Services Working Group. All that is coming perilously near to alphabet soup and none of those bodies has anything like the clout of the now disbanded Cabinet committee of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. They are merely advisory to the Department of Health.
Without becoming involved in the game of supremos and blueprints, to which we are allergic as a nation, I should like to suggest to the Government that there is at least a case for a national co-ordinating committee drawn from political, academic and community service sources on the lines of the US commission. That may help to avoid some of the shortfall and overlaps which I am sure will emerge in this debate. I do not expect the noble Baroness to hand

1111
me such a body across the Dispatch Box but I want her to say that she and her right honourable and honourable friends will look at the matter.
On funding, the British Government's record has been relatively good. It is difficult to make comparisons because one is often not comparing like with like. However, from what I can ascertain, Britain is well up in the European league table, both absolutely and proportionately, in total government resources earmarked for HIV/AIDS. I know that the figures for funds for 1990–91 will shortly be superseded but I give them by way of illustration. For the NHS —that is, for England and Wales—they amounted to £127.5 million; for local authority social services, £9.8 million; for Scottish health boards, £7.8 million; and for special help for Scotland, £7.1 million. That makes a total so far of £152.2 million. In addition, approximately £20 million goes to the MRC, European Community programmes and the Public Health Laboratory Service; £10 million to the HEA; and £1.8 million to the voluntary sector. I shall only remark in passing—I shall return to it later—that central government support of the voluntary sector seems remarkably low at only about one hundredth of the total of £184 million.
So far so good, or fairly good. However, the noble Baroness will certainly be aware of the criticisms levelled by Keith Tolley and Professor Alan Maynard of the York Centre for Health Economics in their paper Government Funding of HIV' AIDS, Medical and Social Care. Without going into details, the basis of the charge is that the present method leads to great disparities between regions; for example, £16,000 per head in South West Region and as much as £70,000 in North East Thames. That is due to the calculation on the basis of live AIDS cases at the end of the previous year. I have referred already to the rise in life expectancy and change in patterns of treatment of AIDS cases. In another paper by Dr. Bentley and Professor Adler, the authors refer to the increased use of anti-retroviral therapy and prophylaxis against opportunistic infections for pre-AIDS treatment. That will alter the ratio of AIDS to pre-AIDS cases. More resources for zidovudine, DDI, CD4 counts, monitoring and the more frequent attendances by pre-AIDS cases will also alter the balance of costs. Those authors say that financial problems will arise if allocations continue to be made on the basis of the number of AIDS cases at the beginning of a financial year. They suggest that projected mid-year numbers should be used instead.
The arguments are rather technical. I shall not pursue them further because the noble Baroness will have them at her fingertips. However, at this point I wish to ask her two questions. Can she assure me that the increased use of therapeutic drugs for both HIV positive and AIDS patients will continue to be supported? She will be aware that the Wellcome Foundation has made two 20 per cent. price cuts of AZT in the UK and has not adjusted fully for inflation for three years. That, with the decrease in dosage, has
1112
brought the cost of AZT treatment down to 38 per cent. of its original level. I hope that the Minister can give me the assurance I seek.
Will the Minister also say that the method of allocation of earmarked AIDS funds will be looked at? She will be aware of the letter written to me by her noble friend Lord Strathclyde on 21st December in which he says that the Scottish Office is reviewing the present method of distribution. Of course, the Scots tend to claim that they order things better north of the Border. That is no reason why we should drag our feet here. There are strong grounds for a more sophisticated system of allocation here which takes into account the identified HIV positive population of any region and the pre-AIDS treatment being provided.
While on financial matters, I must revert to the future funding under the new contract system of the genito-urinary medicine clinics which provide an open access service on a confidential basis to all-comers, regardless of origin. They are an essential bulwark in the control of all sexually transmitted diseases. They have been recognised as such since the introduction of the Venereal Disease Regulations of 1914. They saw 1.5 million people last year and their importance has increased since the onset of HIV/AIDS.
I rehearsed the arguments for their protection and continuance at some length during debates on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I received some assurances from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 25th July last year (at cols. 1352 to 1359) but these have not allayed all fears. The Monks Enquiry Report recommended that the clinics should become "designated services" to be provided in all districts, but it is not clear how they are to be funded; nor is it clear whether confidentiality would still apply to patients who had not entered the hospital through self-referral but through the accident and emergency department. When Mrs. Bottomley addressed the All-Party Parliamentary Group on 27th November last year she agreed that there seemed to be a need for further guidance on these issues. I am hoping that the Minister will take that matter a step further this evening.
As always time is the enemy. I shall now rush through a shopping list, neither the brevity nor the order of which in any way reflects the importance of the issues. I hope that other noble Lords and noble Baronesses will put some flesh on the bones. I shall end on a more philosophical theme which seems to me to be important.
The first item on my shopping list concerns the voluntary sector. In the HIV/AIDS field this sector—a cold word, so perhaps I should say that remarkable assortment of human beings—has been unrivalled in the speed, sensitivity, imagination, innovativeness and the effectiveness of its response. At international gatherings people ask, "How did you get this movement? How can we get one too?" It is not an easy question to answer without being swollen-headed. The immediate question is how it is to survive. It receives only one-hundredth of central government funding, as I have already mentioned. It is also supported by health and local authorities. However,

1113
as all AIDS allocations for 1991–92 have been cut well below the rate of
inflation it is doubtful how far they can continue their support. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will elaborate on that point and I shall say no more except that neither this nor any other social problem in the country could have a hope of solution without the voluntary movement.
The next item on my shopping list concerns the Medical Research Council. It is working on vaccines for prevention, drugs for treatment and the design and monitoring of the epidemiological research through named and anonymised testing. I wish that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who for eight years until recently was chairman of the MRC, were here this evening. Unfortunately he is abroad; otherwise I am sure that he would have spoken. He told me that when he first went to the Whitelaw Committee for AIDS funds he and his colleagues received what they asked for. Is there another wind blowing? I am not sure. However, there is one important point. The response of British science would not have been possible without the strength of its basic research in virology, biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology and epidemiology. Thus it is not only a question of earmarked funds for AIDS. There is a serious concern that the fundamental sciences which underpin the AIDS programmes and on which the research depends are starting to lag behind due to shortage of funds. I hope that the Minister will address that problem.
The shopping list is getting out of hand. It is amazing how one epidemic, albeit a complex one, can give rise to so many heads of concern and have such a devastating effect in so many walks of life. I would have been tempted to dwell on the drugs scene, which is a key link in the HIV chain, had it not been debated thoroughly the other day in your Lordships' House on a Motion ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rodney. I suspect also that that topic will be covered by one or more noble Lords in this debate.
There is the related question of prisons and prisoners, which I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will tackle. Our country is one of the most retrograde in that respect. It surely must give us pause for thought that in Spain, the country of Philip II, the Counter-Reformation, more popish than the Pope, the government have taken on the Church, issued condoms to prisoners and undertaken a nationwide condom-based safer sex campaign.
While on that subject I want to ask the noble Baroness whether, in view of the cutback in family planning services in many districts, the Government will make it possible for GPs to issue free condoms, particularly where no family planning clinic exists. In regard to kitemarking to ensure the quality and effectiveness of condoms based on British Standards and to keep cowboy suppliers out, I understand that the Government are prepared to look at the problem seriously. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that and give me some indication of what is being done.
I would have touched on the question of life insurance, which is an important one in the AIDS world. However, I was relieved to learn from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, only five minutes before I
1114
entered the Chamber, that he is proposing to deal with the subject. I shall therefore remove it from my shopping list and add it to his. I shall nonetheless listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say. The matter was taken up vigorously with the industry by Mr. Robert Key before he became a Minister, and Mrs. Bottomley has also pursued it. I therefore look forward to hearing from the Government and the noble Viscount on that point.
I have reserved a little breath and firepower for education and prevention, and for my peroration—which must now be ardently desired. Education in its widest sense as performed for the public as a whole by the HEA is the most potent weapon we have against the spread of HIV and AIDS. I understand that the response to the latest series of short TV personal testimonials has increased the average weekly calls to the national AIDS helpline from 8,000–10,000 to 22,000 per week. Is the Minister pleased with that? Will the Government continue to authorise and fund similar broadcasts?
In schools the matter is more difficult. Sex education is only a small part of health education, which in turn is only a cross-curricular theme that has to find an uneasy lodgement in other subjects of the National Curriculum. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, would have liked to attend the debate but cannot. He sent me a note indicating his concern on that point. Governors also have the ultimate say in schools on whether there should be any sex education at all. Has the department, in conjunction with the DES, thought of issuing guidance to governors? To my knowledge there is a parent-governors association which might be receptive.
I wish to address only one other topic. It concerns public health and private morals. This is the most important political issue facing any government in a matter like this. It affects the expenditure society will sanction and the official messages that can be sent out by the HEA, whether in schools or over the broadcasting channels. With the very large costs attached to any HIV/AIDS scenario, however minimalist, it is obviously in the interests of government and taxpayers that every conceivable precaution should be taken. It is clear to me that "safer sex" is not only in the interest of the individual but also of the public. That is a straight piece of utilitarianism well within the British empirical tradition.
However, religious and family mores of an older stamp cannot simply be dismissed. Indeed, the Government have faced criticism of the "safer sex" campaign on the grounds that it encourages promiscuity. I understand that. But I believe it to be ill-directed. The Government are above all the custodian of public health during an epidemic and not of private morals, which are up to individuals. That public health role is one which none but the Government can fill. I am not against continence, abstinence or fidelity; but it is up to the Churches and other ethical bodies to make the case for them.
I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark will be speaking this evening. I expect him to make just such a case and shall respect

1115
him for it. But it is the Government's duty to protect the well-being of the people as a whole, regardless of creed and custom. Creed and custom—the ethical approach, if you like—constitute another track which can and no doubt should be pursued vigorously. But they do not fall within the province of Government, whose duty is to achieve disease control with all the means at their disposal. At the onset of the epidemic the Government took a commendably nonjudgmental and unmoralistic stance. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that that is still what animates official thinking.
We have been fortunate in our leadership on AIDS. Mr. Fowler, as he then was, Mr. Newton and now Mrs. Bottomley have all taken the epidemic deeply to heart, as I am sure does the noble Baroness. I am sure Mr. Waldegrave will do the same. All have benefited, and I hope that they will continue to do so, from the wise guidance of the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Donald Acheson and I cannot refrain from applauding the dedication with which Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales has brought comfort and understanding to AIDS sufferers. Hers is an impressive example. But we still have a lot of work to do. There are still gaps, shortcomings and instances of pure wrongheadedness in our policy. I have endeavoured to point some of those out.
I hope that the noble Baroness will take my remarks in the constructive spirit in which they were intended and answer as many questions as she can this evening. I look forward to her reply and to all the other contributions to the debate. I beg to move for Papers.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, not only for initiating this debate but for the two previous debates which he opened and for his energy and enthusiasm in sustaining the work of the all-party Parliamentary group which provided us with invaluable research material on this subject. I, too, am personally grateful to him.
I have the deepest sympathy for all who are directly involved—that is, the doctors, nurses, carers and family members—but most of all, for the victims of AIDS and HIV. It is not just the feeling of hopelessness which must come to those who are afflicted and suddenly discover that they are AIDS victims, but the fear and rejection by so many members of society. I believe that part of our educational role is to try to gain understanding for those who, whether or not by some act of their own, have contracted this sad disease. I so much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that by her constant contact, which has sometimes included physical contact, Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales has made a notable contribution to this kind of understanding.
Of course we need more education not only in a preventive sense but in society as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has dealt with the overseas statistics. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord
1116
Rees-Mogg—I hope that he arrives in time to take part in this debate—who had a notable article published in the Independent on Monday. It looked at the whole world picture. Taking the situation in Britain, the best available estimate I have is that possibly up to 46,000 people in England and Wales had been infected with HIV by the end of 1990. Although homosexual men have accounted for most cases of AIDS to date, the rate of increase is much higher for other groups. In particular, the number of cases attributed to heterosexual intercourse increased by 98 per cent. during 1990; from 135 to 268. Over the same period, the number of cases attributable to the sharing of injecting equipment increased by 100 per cent.; from 80 to 161.
AIDS does not develop until, on average, around 10 years after a person is infected with HIV. Therefore, these figures reflect past rather than current patterns of the spread of HIV for which it is almost impossible to produce a conclusive figure. The rate of increase in reported HIV-positive cases among heterosexuals is rising faster than for any other groups. It was up by 61 per cent. during 1990. As that reflects only those individuals who have been tested, it may also not give an accurate picture of the epidemic. The question of testing is very controversial. My personal view is that if someone has a blood test for some other reason I do not see why that blood test should not also tell them whether or not they have an infection. It is important that people themselves should know. I am not saying that others should be given the results. I am certain that a great deal of cross-infection arises from the fact that people are unaware of their own situation. We still have a massive and growing problem. Broadly speaking, the Government have tackled the situation well; but we should not let down our guard. That is my principal fear. There is much cause for concern.
I have listened, as I am certain other noble Lords have, to conversations among young men and women, boys and girls. A frighteningly high proportion of those involved in casual sex are prepared to take a risk and have sex with a partner without the protection of a condom because, inevitably, they have no knowledge about their own danger or the possibility of infection by their partner. They say, "Sex is fun and it is not likely to happen to me". People always say that it is not likely to happen to them. We still have an enormous way to go in order to persuade young heterosexuals of the risks of having casual sex without the use of condoms. Little do they know that they may already be carriers. It is a wildly irresponsible attitude, risking their own lives and that of their sexual partners.
My main contacts are through the voluntary sector; the Terrence Higgins Trust, Crusaid, Phoenix House, of which the noble Baroness Lady Masham is the chairman and I am a member of her committee; London Lighthouse, which does a remarkably important job; the National AIDS Trust and the Mildmay Mission hospital. All are greatly to be commended. I commend to your Lordships a new book on terminal care for people with AIDS by two people who work at the Mildmay Mission hospital.

1117
The London Lighthouse is a national resource for people with HIV. It provides care and support to over 4,000 people a year. As London Lighthouse currently obtains 80 per cent. of its income from statutory bodies, it has a number of anxieties relating to the recent legislative changes in the NHS which are due to take effect in April 1991.
In particular, London Lighthouse is worried about the implications these changes have regarding treatment for people affected by HIV-AIDS and their freedom to choose which service they wish to receive. Its primary concern is to ensure that open access is maintained for all the services when contractual agreements come into force. It is also concerned that as catchment areas develop it may have funding only to provide services to people living within district health authorities with whom it has a contract. Consequently, access to people from districts without a contract will be restricted. Already non-Thames district health authorities have denied their residents access to their services due to the refusal or inability of authorities to pay. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at this matter. It would be a tragedy if, with the introduction of the contractual system from 1st April, it were made any more difficult for patients to be able to receive the treatment, particularly where it is available to them.
I now say a few words about the voluntary sector. Its response to HIV-AIDS has been rapid and innovative. The diversity of organisations illustrates many needs which have arisen in relation to HIV-AIDS. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, paid tribute to the voluntary organisations. Many of them have good working relations with the statutory sector, but funding does pose a real problem. There is great concern over the ability of projects to maintain services at current levels, let alone expand them to meet new needs.
I draw the attention of the Minister specifically to the fact that the AIDS support grant for 1991–92 has been increased to local authorities by only 4 per cent. and to health authorities by 6 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, both of those figures are below the level of inflation. That presents very severe problems to the voluntary sector. Despite a strong funding contribution from some regional health authorities, much of the statutory sector funding available to the voluntary sector has been from local authorities. If the local authorities are pegged then the money is simply not going to be available for the voluntary organisations to do the jobs which they do so very well.
The AIDS support grant to local authorities for 1991–92 means that many local authorities will be unable to cover their own costs and will certainly not be able to fund the voluntary sector. Therefore, on behalf of the voluntary sector I must tell the Minister that there are real dangers which the Government must face unless we are to see a slipping back rather than a stepping forward.
I refer now to the NHS. Although the provision of new resources only began in 1986–87 the major allocation was not made until 1988–89. Hence, many
1118
of the services are very new and still vulnerable in a National Health Service which faces major financial and managerial constraints. That is all the more so because of the historic marginal position of units like health education. If these new services are to be consolidated, protected and expanded, earmarked funding must continue. It is important that the Government should recognise that a commitment must be a commitment.
The underlying principle behind the provision of earmarked money for HIV development was that it be ring-fenced. It was not to be used for purposes unrelated to HIV and particularly not to help offset wider NHS deficits. Given the financial problems facing the NHS it has been difficult for some managers to resist using this money for other purposes. A number of notable examples of this have been reported recently, of which the Minister is no doubt aware. This has given rise to some suspicion that the HIV issue has been allocated too much money and that not all the allocation was required. That view must be changed. In that respect, I want an assurance from the Minister on the situation as it affects the National Health Service.
The situation is serious. The policy being pursued by the Government is simply not acceptable. Penny pinching now is endangering the lives of tens of thousands of people in years to come. The local authority associations' officer working group on AIDS, from which department of health funding has recently been withdrawn—I hope we can have an explanation for that—has drawn up a programme of training and development for AIDS co-ordinators and liaison officers with a strategic emphasis which will go some way towards meeting these key officers' training needs. In order to provide the best possible advice and to ensure high quality service provision in their local communities these officers need specific training and development input in a variety of relevant subject areas. One crucial consequence of this withdrawal of NHS funding is that local authorities are increasingly unable to fund important voluntary sector initiatives. Some community charge capped authorities have stated clearly that they will not be in a position to fund any voluntary sector initiatives in this financial year and probably not in the following year. Perhaps I may give Kensington and Chelsea as an example in case the Minister thinks that only Labour authorities face this problem.
Bodies in the voluntary sector are rightly recognised as playing a fundamentally important role in the further prevention of the spread of HIV infection in our communities. Their ability to continue to do so is already beginning to be severely hampered. Their difficulties are exacerbated by their own needs for specific areas of training and development, not least in relation to the importance of developing skills and expertise in contributing to contracts for social care and in developing agreements in relation to the provision of services.
I hope that this debate will cause the Government to think again. Two courses of action are needed. First, there should be an immediate increase in the

1119
level of AIDS support grant in line with inflation, or above it, to allow projects to continue to exist; and where projects have not yet begun, to allow them to make a start. Secondly, there should be an increased recognition that joint funding arrangements—the whole future of which is still, so far as I know, uncertain—are nevertheless the key to the continued development of high quality service provision and of education.
The local authorities have shown themselves to be highly committed to making a major contribution to the further prevention of the spread of HIV infection and to the provision of high quality services for those already affected by the virus. This increasingly harsh financial climate is tying their hands and demoralising their workers at a time when all expert advice tells us that the number of people affected is consistently increasing and when many view levels of complacency to be higher than ever. I hope that this debate will bring home to the Government and the House the message that not only is there no room for complacency but that there is room for great anxiety about the extent to which we as a society are fulfilling our obligations. The consequences of any failures now may not be seen immediately—it is perhaps 10 years from now that we will see the folly of our ways—so I urge the Government to continue as well as they started and maintain the pressure for services, and the funding of services, which the cause so urgently needs.
5.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to address the question of the connection between HIV testing and the life assurance industry. There are two main reasons why people should seek a test to find out whether they are HIV positive. The first is obvious: should they turn out to be HIV positive they would quite rightly wish to take steps to make sure that the disease does not spread to others. The second reason is that recent advances in medical science have made it possible to delay the development of HIV into AIDS by the use of certain drugs and it is therefore necessary for the HIV positive result to be obtained at an early stage.
Those who have taken an HIV test which was negative will encounter delays if not difficulties if they seek to fill in a proposal form for life assurance. Those who are HIV positive are bound not to get the life assurance cover they seek. Those who have been for a test in any case, whether it is negative or positive, are in serious difficulties. If they are negative, the companies will inevitably require them, because they have taken the test, to answer further questions. It is the subject of the further questions which at this stage is a little worrying.
I have before me a fairly standard additional form from a leading insurance company. The form is short and brief. The Terrence Higgins Trust would describe it as crude. It is called a lifestyle questionnaire. Those who have taken a test, even though it be negative, are required to say whether they are part of five clearly defined groups: a homosexual, a bisexual, an
1120
intravenous user of drugs, a haemophiliac or someone who has sexual partners who are connected with any of those groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals referred to an excellent article, written by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, which appeared in the Independent. I do not see the noble Lord in the Chamber but I hope he will be here later. It was full of information and was extremely interesting to read. An important point relating to the attitude of life assurance companies was made early in the article: 60 per cent. of those who suffer from AIDS contracted their disease from heterosexual sources in the first place.
The article went on to state that there is authoritative evidence which shows that by 1993 at least two-thirds of new AIDS sufferers in this country will have contracted the disease from heterosexual contact rather than from homosexual contact. Therefore, not only is the insurance companies' line of questioning about one's lifestyle brief and crude: it is also not based upon reality. Many of those who are vulnerable are not covered at all because they have provided the additional information required and this in turn leaves an important gap in their lives.
As I said, if you are in a high risk group, you will not be able to obtain insurance cover. However, if you had not taken the test in the first place, and admitted so doing, you would not have had to fill in the extra form. I suggest to your Lordships that the people who are most at risk are those who are most discouraged from taking the test. Of course, there is another option: one can always lie on the insurance form. Such a course of action should be avoided at all costs. I say that because anyone who does so runs the risk of losing any premiums and benefits which may have accrued.
As noble Lords will be aware, insurance companies can consult your doctor when you apply for the insurance cover. Of course, you have to give your permission; but if you do not do so, again, that will affect your proposal. In such a situation your doctor is bound to pass on any information he has about you and about what is termed your "lifestyle". The same applies to any other doctors whom you may have consulted and whose names you are required to put on the form.
The present situation is unsatisfactory. That fact has been confirmed to me by many doctors. I am informed that doctors will often advise against taking an HIV test because of the damage which it may cause financially by prejudicing the chances of obtaining life insurance. Indeed, I was discussing the matter only today with someone with two female friends who had both consulted their doctor. Each one had been given such advice and, at the same time, the doctor concerned had advised each girl that he would keep their conversation off the record so as not to prejudice any chances of getting life insurance cover.
As I said, the situation is extremely unsatisfactory. I should very much like to hear the Government's view on the matter. I say that because, without labouring the point, there are many people who are at risk and who are being prevented and discouraged from taking tests which may save lives in the long run. In my view,

1121
the matter needs to be addressed as it has been in the United States, although I dare say that the situation there is somewhat different. Indeed, the Association of British Insurers believes that the reason one is not asked the question, "Have you had an HIV test?" but is asked instead, "Are you HIV positive?" in the United States is because Americans all have blood tests throughout their lives, whereas in this country one generally has a blood test only when something appears to be wrong. For reasons of which I am unaware, although other noble Lords may well have the answer, it is actually against the law in the United States to ask the question, "Have you had an HIV test?" It is interesting to note that the asking of such a question is not against the law in Canada. However, that country has opted to go the American way. People are asked, "Are you HIV positive?" They are not asked, "Have you had an HIV test?" That is done voluntarily because it is felt to be more satisfactory.
I shall leave the matter there. I hope that I have focused your Lordships' attention on this particular area. I also hope that I have not upset the insurance industry by what I have said. Indeed, I dare say that the industry runs its affairs very competently. However, it seems to me that it has taken an historical view of the disease which is extremely limited and which concentrates mainly on experience in this country. The early experience of the disease related largely to homosexuals. Enormous and admirable efforts have been made by the homosexual community to ensure that such people are less at risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, pointed out in his newspaper article. That is the group of people which has made the greatest efforts to ensure that the disease does not spread in its community. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have followed with great interest the remarks made by the noble Viscount. I wonder whether he can give his own view on one aspect of the matter. It seems to me that it is one thing to have a test which is available to the insurance company, but it is another thing to have a test which is available to yourself. Can the noble Viscount give the House his view on that complicated issue?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I must be honest and say that, before speaking in the debate, I had been concentrating rather exclusively on the insurance aspect of the matter. However, because of the discussions which I had with various people before entering the Chamber, I am under the impression that many young women are very conscious of the change in thinking which has now been recognised. I refer to the fact that heterosexual contact now seems more and more to be the cause of the disease. But that view is not held among young men. They seem to have gone into conventional thinking along the lines that it is only homosexuals who are at risk.
When a young women is entering a new relationship she may be worried about a previous boyfriend. She may have had one or two affairs, but this is a sign of the age in which we live. She may consider that a previous boyfriend was promiscuous
1122
and she may wish to reassure herself and the new man in her life in this respect. It is only fair that she should feel quite secure in the knowledge that she can go and take the test in order to find out about her state of health without prejudicing herself as regards obtaining life insurance cover.
5.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I want to make my way into the debate via Uganda. It is clear that Uganda is one of the countries on the African continent worst affected by AIDS and HIV infection: the latest estimate is probably about 1.3 million out of a population of some 20 million. Yet, despite the obvious differences, I believe that there is much to be learned already from the responses which the Churches and other organisations in that country are trying to make to the problem.
What follows is based mainly on my conversation with someone who has recently returned from a visit to Uganda and who is himself a Ugandan priest now working in the diocese of Southwark. He spent a week in the diocese of Namirembe, which is a large diocese severely afflicted by AIDS and HIV infection. He was able to talk with the bishop and others who are directly concerned. After much discussion I understand that the Ugandan Churches, along with the government, have come down in favour of widespread testing. Noble Lords will be interested to hear that test centres are being set up, in particular near churches. Persuasion and not coercion is stressed, but of course against a background of growing awareness about the extreme seriousness of the epidemic in that country.
Testing is confidential. It is recognised that a positive result will have serious consequences for the individual concerned and for members of his or her family if they are told. The Bishop of Namirembe has appointed four counsellors. On one occasion my informant saw 60 people waiting to see two of them. By our standards, that is an impossible case load, but one has to do what one can in a country with so few trained resources; and at least the need is recognised. The overriding argument in favour of testing is that the situation must be faced openly, and that will only be so when people begin to realise their own responsibility and involvement and develop a sense of urgency in coming to terms with what is happening.
Much agonising has gone into the debate about what we call safer sex and the use of condoms, as one might imagine. Church leaders there, as here, are not in the business of encouraging promiscuity; we are in the business of encouraging chastity, self-discipline and faithfulness to a partner. But Church leaders there, as here, also try to be realists. We are well aware that not everyone accepts the Christian ethic, and in Uganda there is also a legacy from polygamy which makes faithfulness to one wife more difficult. The culture is hostile to male contraceptives, and there is the question of cost and reliability.
The outcome of the Churches' debate in Uganda is an interesting one. It has been to propose to government and others that condoms should be made freely available only to those who are HIV positive. I

1123
doubt whether that is a realistic way forward, but at least it is a serious attempt to send out a signal which is consistent with the view that the best way forward is to teach and practise chastity and not to encourage promiscuity.
My informant told me that he was amazed by the way in which the Churches are trying to meet the desperate needs of orphans and children who are HIV positive or dying of AIDS. I understand that the time gap between being positive and getting the disease is much shorter with children. They have day clinics which in that diocese are being funded by grants from the German Lutherans, who provide food, clothing and other help to enable the children to be cared for as much as possible by the extended family if their own parents have died or are too weak to cope.
The significant point about that development is that children are not being swept out of sight in some remote institution, as happened, for example, in Romania. Villages divided by civil war and other sufferings are coming together again in a common recognition of need and acceptance. They remember after all, some of them, what happened to lepers. There is an upsurge of loving concern in many villages which gives cause for hope in face of the fear that AIDS induces.
In this country we are still in a different situation from Uganda, but there are useful and important parallels to be drawn. If the disease progresses here, the case for widespread testing must be strengthened. How else shall we learn how serious is the situation that we face and take the steps necessary, both individually and corporately, to meet the threats that may emerge?
The importance of counselling is plain to see. A wealthy community can afford to put far more resources into appropriate training and numbers than a third world country; but the interesting point about the Ugandan experience is that such counsellors need to be easy to reach. They have to be voluntary. They have to do their work in a way which makes them accessible to people of varied background and culture and be able to counter the common misunderstandings about the spread of the disease. Sometimes our counselling becomes so professional that it is not readily in touch with many ordinary folk.
In this country', public education has focused almost entirely upon the safer sex route, with its implicit assumption that that is the only way worth considering. The Church of England Board for Social Responsibility in its submission to the Social Services Committee of another place in 1986 made it clear that:
"It is the teaching of the Church that all individuals should practise chastity before, during and outside marriage … Pairing and bonding are normally part of human nature, and promiscuity is contrary to it".
That is not to deny in any way that sex is fun. But we all know that there is more to be said. I am very much aware of the difficulties, especially the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about the responsibility of government for health rather than for morality as such. But I believe that there are still many
1124
people who would welcome a more positive emphasis on that alternative way of preventing the spread of AIDS, because that is what we are talking about tonight, especially perhaps in guidance for health education in schools. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can comment on that point.
Finally, we should note how strongly the Ugandan Churches are trying to foster open and honest recognition of what is happening and are working with and through their local communities to care for and accept the victims of HIV infection and AIDS and not to turn away from them in apathy or condemnation or because they think that someone else should cope. They know that there will be no large government funds available in that country, and I guess that sooner or later we shall have to come to terms with the fact that ours too are limited.
One of the suggestions that we have often heard—I believe that it is important—is that there need to be more special hospices, such as the Mildmay Hospital or the London Lighthouse. That may well be right, so long as we recognise that AIDS sufferers also need to stay in the community and at work for as long as possible—and that relates to the insurance issue. It is vital for them and for us that we do not fall into a 20th century version of the rejection of lepers. The Churches still have an important role to play in this, probably not widely understood as yet, and it is good that in many places the local churches, usually acting together and ecumenically, are beginning to support advisers, advice centres and support groups such as Time for Support in Manchester.
In my diocese, Brixton Prison has a small hospital. I am aware, because I have seen it, that an extension has been built to house AIDS patients. Judge Tumim's recent report on the prison and the hospital did not encourage us to think that the level of care would be very great, given Home Office constraints on funding and staffing. When people are dying of AIDS, is it necessary for them to end their days in a prison hospital? Could there not be a hospice for dying prisoners, with simple security, where relatives might have greater access for those last few weeks and months and where reconciliation with one another and with God might be easier and more humane?
6.8 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for bringing the debate to the Floor of the House. In the same breath, perhaps I may apologise to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for being late in reaching the Chamber. I inquired in a certain office and was given the information that the debate would probably start at about 5.30 p.m. I stepped into the Chamber at 5.31 p.m. I apologise to your Lordships for being late.
I want to speak in the debate because there are two sides of my life which are deeply concerned with the subject. One is that I have spent a good deal of time in education, and there is a major health promotion and health education challenge in this terrible epidemic that we face. The second is of course that my

1125
first degree was in medicine. I may stray into the clinical vocabulary as I have not written out all my words in detail. If they become rather torrid I hope your Lordships will excuse me. It is not my intention to try to shock or offend.
I want to begin, as I am sure the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Ennals, probably emphasised, by saying what a great change has come about in this epidemic. When it started I am sure from my personal observations that there was a good deal of prejudice about those suffering from acquired immunodeficiency state diseases because of the link with homosexuality, which runs against the grain for many folk. But it is terribly important that we all leave this debate clear in our minds that it is no longer correct to consider the epidemic in those terms.
The World Health Organisation stated firmly in a publication on 15th December:
"heterosexual transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS is becoming the predominant mode of spread".
I wanted to go on to say that there are projections—and we have no reason to doubt their accuracy—that the number of people who may he suffering from this dreadful condition (I will tell you in a moment why I regard it as so dreadful) is going to be of the order of 25 to 30 million in the early part of the next century. I am sure that that figure has probably already been drawn in, but I do not apologise for re-emphasising it.
If you are immunodeficient you are very susceptible to a whole range of infections. In connection with this debate I was talking on Sunday to an English nurse just back from a spell in New York. She said, "There are two things I would tell you, Professor. One is that we are now seeing many women with AIDS in New York, and the other is that the number of patients with tuberculosis as a result of AIDS is rising and rising, and that is a very uncomfortable sort of case to have to nurse".
There is a further point that I should like to make. One of the things that happens to you when you are a retired professor is that you perhaps see more of your students. I am going to describe two things that former students have said to me. First, a lady doctor reported to me the sort of distressing cases which have been drawn into this terrible web. She knows of young mothers from the Middle East who were delivered and had a small haemorrhage at the time of delivery. Their obstetricians, anxious to provide the best level of service, topped them up with a little transfusion of blood, a bout 150 millilitres. Unfortunately a lot of the blood in the Middle East 10, seven, five years ago came from New York and was contaminated with the virus. Therefore, as a result of what was hoped at the time to be good medical practice, this doctor has seen several young mothers in London in the terminal stages of AIDS with all the resulting problems of degeneration of the central nervous system. There is a lesson there that we need to learn.
Not long ago I was in the Soviet Union. The doctors there were all worrying that so many children—several hundred in one epidemic—in small hospitals
1126
and in orphanages had been infected by repeated use of the same needle. The prediction is that there are going to be probably 10 million orphans worldwide within the next 20 to 30 years. The mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, will die and leave them as a dangerous and serious social and political problem.
Those youngsters are bound to become streetwise. I cannot believe that they will not have hard children's hearts. It is one of the things that I worry about. I hope that we do not find among them some who are prepared to step on anybody in their way to success in their lives as they would judge it. Of course one fears that some of them may follow a military career and lead countries to war.
That touches a point that I should like to make quickly. I am full of admiration for our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Hurd. He is right to worry about conferences after the Gulf War is brought to a conclusion, and it is to be hoped that that will be soon. Perhaps I may say, however, that there are some of us in this Chamber—and I believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark will be one of them—who will be pressing that before the end of the century there will be more international conferences about what is going to be needed for the survivors of this epidemic. I suggest that we need to worry particularly about those 10 million orphans.
The second part of Lord Kilmarnock's Motion concerned the measures required to limit the spread in the United Kingdom, and I should like to talk about that for a few moments. First, I must on your Lordships' behalf offer our congratulations to the many people who have been so busy and successful in combating this epidemic in this country. The Chief Medical Officer and the Department of Health deserve our thanks and congratulations. Many people have come forward to help there—it is usually young men at this stage—in the terminal stages of the disease.
The world medical fraternity has stepped up its efforts as have our pharmaceutical companies too. I know that there has been difficulty about the question of insurance, and I have been led to believe that a joint survey is being conducted by the Association of British Insurers and the Department of Health. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in due course if that is so and how it is getting on?
We know that the numbers in this country are alarming. For example, in Edinburgh one pregnant woman in every 250; in Dundee one in every 1,500; and in London one in every 2,000 is HIV positive when she comes to the clinic. Those are pretty alarming numbers.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene for a moment? I find most interesting the figures he has just given about the number of pregnant women who are HIV positive. How is this known? Presumably blood tests were carried out. What consent was given specifically by all those women for the test for HIV?
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer that. These figures came to me through the offices of the Medical Research Council, which I should also like to congratulate on its wonderful

1127
efforts in this epidemic. I believe that it has become the custom to test pregnant women in clinics in case there are problems with blood transfusion needs. I believe that is the basis for the testing. The figures are alarming.
I should just like briefly to talk about the question of prevention. There is a great and wonderful story in my profession about Professor Bywaters, who was once asked by his students about safe contraception. He said, "There is only one safe oral contraceptive and that is a firm, `No'". Whether we are going to be able to bring about that level of continence among young people is one of the great challenges which face us. There is no doubt that people are keen on condoms. Perhaps I may mention that I have heard from health educators in Japan, which I visited recently, that the approach adopted there is to encourage the girl partner to put the condom on her young man. This apparently increases the chances that condoms will be used. The girl's excuse for it is that she is twice as likely—if the pair do not know their HIV status—as the boy to contract the disease from promiscuous intercourse.
Lastly, I would not wish noble Lords to leave the Chamber without being made aware of the work on vaccination which is going on in this country. We can hold our heads high and I am grateful to my friends and colleagues in the Medical Research Council and elsewhere in the research world for the information that I shall give briefly.
In this country we have a great tradition as regards vaccination. Edward Jenner started vaccination in the grounds of Berkeley Castle and I think his first boy was vaccinated in 1796. The question now arises: how shall we find something like the vaccinia virus, the cowpox virus against smallpox, to use against the AIDS virus? Our clever young men and women will know about the proteins in the HIV virus.
As examples of the devotion shown by our young research workers who are committed to the problem, I shall mention two points. First, there has been successful vaccination of a small number of monkeys through collaboration with the Zoo. Secondly, now that it is known that protection can be obtained with fragments of the virus protein, certain people, young men at St. Mary's Hospital and a professor at the University of Cambridge, are allowing themselves to be inoculated every month with one of the proteins which might be a useful vaccine. They expect their blood to be taken and the antibody to be separated, labelled and given to patients with AIDS. It is labelled so that estimates can be made of the rate at which the antibodies are being used up. At the moment, no one knows whether the antibodies are low in AIDS patients because they are used up more quickly or because the T-cell, the immunological defence, is unable to make the antibodies.
I apologise for running over my time but I wanted noble Lords to know of the strenuous efforts being made by all those at the research interface with the AIDS problem. Their efforts are a reminder to us of the size of the problem we face and how important it is that we recognise that we shall have great
1128
responsibilities in Southern Africa, parts of the Sahara and the Far East. We may have responsibilities for health there as great as the challenges we are meeting in the Gulf war.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I also must apologise for being late for the start of the debate. When I telephoned the House at half past four I was told that the debate would start at about 6.15 p.m. That would give me time to attend the all-party football committee annual general meeting at six o'clock and also hear the opening speeches. As it happens, I have missed all those speeches and I am now missing the football meeting.
Telling people that AIDS is always fatal is both untrue and misguided. It ignores the fact that many patients have experienced significant remissions and now lead normal lives. It is also an entirely negative approach for, as I propose to show, AIDS patients must be able to live in a wholly positive atmosphere in which their self-healing capacity is encouraged and enhanced.
The AIDS virus, as we have heard, reduces the efficiency of the immune system, particularly the T-4 helper cells which organise the killer cells of the body's defence mechanisms, leaving the victim susceptible to infections which are normally naturally controlled. Your Lordships will know of my interest in the natural methods of healing. I declare an interest as president of the Natural Medicines Society, joint president, with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, and a patron of the Research Council for Complementary Medicine. I also acknowledge this evening the help I have received from papers by Branko Bokun and Chris Thomson.
It must be logical to spend some time and money on research into how to improve the efficiency of our natural defence systems. Even if scientific research eventually finds a cure for AIDS, without improving the efficiency of our immunity, other lethal viruses or different forms of AIDS could become active.
We all carry thousands of innate or acquired viruses in our bodies which remain inactive if our immune system is in good shape. Could it not be that AIDS develops when someone's immunodeficiency, perhaps caused by another infection, descends to a particularly low level, to the point where it becomes incapable of any defensive action? Perhaps our defence mechanisms have a sliding scale of deficiency and at a certain point on that scale, varying between different individuals, we become susceptible to certain infections.
In our present environment we are permanently subjected to all manner of micro-organisms which often lie dormant for our whole life, if our immune system is in good order. There is no doubt that it is possible to catch and carry AIDS for many years, perhaps even a lifetime, without any ill effects if our immune system works correctly. Millions of people carry the herpes virus in a quiescent state, only

1129
showing symptoms when the immune system descends to the level of its deficiency at which herpes becomes active.
Scientific researchers invariably insist that most carriers of AIDS will develop the disease and die within five to seven years. There is no proof but as that kind of statement produces panic and stress, the chances are that it is true. Panic and stress lower the immunity to the disease and death is more likely. Fears and anxieties stimulate the hypothalamus, increasing the activity of the sympathetic nervous system. The more protracted this alert state, the more damage is created to the immunity. When the state continues for long periods, as it would invariably do when individuals are told that they have the AIDS virus, various hematological abnormalities occur, of which the most common is the reduction in the number of leucocytes—the very cells responsible for the body's defence against pathogens.
I believe that male homosexuals are more susceptible to AIDS not due to their sexual promiscuity—although this may help to spread the disease—but because of the factors that are part of their lifestyle: anxiety, agitation and restlessness produced by the instability of their state of existence created by mental attitudes. In general, male homosexuals have a lower immunity than average, thus making them more susceptible than others to opportunistic infections.
Drug addicts, by the nature of the abuse to their bodies, develop immunodeficiency, which exposes them to many infections including AIDS. In any society, there will always be young people who develop irrational anxieties. They mainly stem from successful parents or a community where success is praised and failure is a stigma. At an age when they face reality, responsibilities and the values created by healthier and tougher generations, these youngsters instead develop anxieties and fear of failure, which is diminished by the use of drugs.
Like any escape, drug addiction increases fear and anxiety which in turn reduces the efficiency of the immune system. Those who suggest giving addicts free sterilised needles and syringes in order to prevent spreading AIDS do not understand the psychology of drug addicts. Sharing the needle consolidates togetherness and belonging, which are far more important to those people than anything else.
Could the rapid spread of AIDS in central Africa—where signs of the anxiety and stress in the western style of life and its cures using drugs, alcohol and sex, are becoming more evident—be due to the fact that the imitation and adaptation to this new lifestyle is particularly strenuous?
The main agent which facilitates the spreading of an epidemic is the fear of that disease. Fear reduces immunodeficiency dramatically. Dramatised statements from the media cannot but spread AIDS, opportunistic infections, AIDS related complex or cancers. Vague speculations and forecasts can create such terror among the virus carriers as to transform the speculations into truth. The real truth is that AIDS
1130
virus carriers could live to a normal age if they concentrated on keeping their immunity at its optimal range.
People are becoming increasingly frightened at the first sign of physical or mental disorder. More people are rushing to their doctors in search of the quickest and most effective drug remedy, prescribed in most cases to please patients. Many strong drugs, particularly antibiotics, inhibit the body's immunity, and certain drugs, particularly the corticosteroids, positively reduce the immune reaction.
I am in possession of papers which show that HIV patients and patients with AIDS-related complex can be helped dramatically by treatment with a combination of mainly natural therapies. The current edition of the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine gives details of an American trial which has shown 100 per cent. survival and no progression to full blown AIDS in 16 HIV-positive patients over a 12-month period. That compares with a 93 per cent. survival rate and 28 per cent. progression to full-blown AIDS in a study of patients using AZT therapy. I am also aware of the beneficial effects of treatment with sodium ascorbate, or Vitamin C. A recently published paper from the Linus Pauling Institute confirms reports from doctors who are having considerable success treating AIDS patients with large non-toxic amounts of Vitamin C. I am trying to show that it is inherent immunity which is the vital factor in AIDS.
I have been a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS for several years. I have failed to persuade its members to take any notice of, or to invite presentations from, complementary practitioners working with AIDS patients. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will have a sufficiently open mind this evening to take serious note of what I have said and to bring my remarks to the attention of her right honourable friend in another place. I should be most grateful for some indication in the winding up speech of my noble friend of the Government's feelings towards the matters I have raised.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, first of all I must apologise because, like the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I have a very bad cold, so if I suddenly stop speaking it will be to breathe. Perhaps I shall ask the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, for some of his treatment.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject this evening. Much has happened since 1983 when there was the first Question on AIDS in your Lordships' House. As far as the noble Lord and I have been concerned, this matter has always had very high priority.
If we turn back to 18th March 1985 when there was the first debate on an Unstarred Question on the subject in this House, the Minister answering said that in 1985 there were 132 confirmed cases, of which 58 had died. AIDS is now the greatest cause of death in New York City. In very many countries of the world

1131
the problem is greater than it is in Britain. I have known two people who have died of AIDS and one who is now dying. It will not be long before many more people will know somebody with AIDS. It is difficult to explain what it feels like to know that someone whom one loves has AIDS. When one fully realises, it is a sorrow that one has to hold and manage as life has to go on. The AIDS virus creates much emotion. There is a strange cloak of silence that comes down which can be lifted only on rare occasions. Many people have now gone through the mourning process, having shed many tears in private.
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, must be congratulated on his dedicated hard work. I have the honour to be one of the group's vice-chairmen and should like to pay tribute to the research workers and others who have served the group and to the helpful information which results from having such a group in Parliament dealing with this important matter.
There is no doubt that the British Government have done a great deal to try to prevent the spread of this cruel virus. Many very difficult decisions have had to be taken. Most people take a responsible line, but there are always a few who may spread the virus on purpose because of a grudge and a bitterness against society. Knowing what the results of AIDS can be, I would say that there is no greater priority than to try to do everything possible to stem the spread. Surely one of the biggest problems is that there must be many people who do not know that they are HIV-positive, who perhaps even shut out the thought of any possibility; they just do not want to know, especially if there are no benefits to knowing but only disadvantages. Now, with the increase in women finding themselves HIV-positive there is a fear that their children might be put into care or on the risk register. These people need help from those they can trust and they need to be where they will feel safe.
I have the honour to be a council member of the London Lighthouse. I am a new member, having joined in September. I also have connections with the Mildmay Mission hospital, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, has visited, and with ACET, AIDS Care Education and Training. These organisations are all doing vital work, giving people with AIDS a safe place where they are understood and looked after as human beings or giving them care and support in their own homes.
On an estimate of 85 per cent. occupancy, it costs about £260 per day for a resident at the Lighthouse. Home care is much cheaper. ACET estimates that it costs around £10 per day. During 1990–91 it received 320 referrals in London, of which 157 were for full home care. One of the ever-increasing problems is that organisations such as ACET have to negotiate with 30 to 60 authorities in London alone. That is why ring-fence money is vital. ACET also provides help elsewhere: in Scotland; with the devastating problems in Africa; and with education programmes in Romania.
1132
With the ever-increasing number of AIDS cases some organisations are reaching crisis point. The World Health Organisation estimates that the current level of infection is 8 to 10 million and the projected level by year 2000 is over 20 million.
Working in the field of AIDS may have its sorrowful and difficult side but there are some quite exceptionally good and dedicated people who are providing models of care which could be used in the community in respect to other groups such as severely physically disabled people and cancer patients. There is a wonderful section of volunteers working for both the London Lighthouse and ACET as well as for many other projects. The use of volunteers in any organisation means that if it is to work well they must be reliable; the support for them must be good; and they should be well managed. For AIDS sufferers, having paid staff and volunteers working side by side seems on the whole to work very well.
The challenges posed by HIV and AIDS demand a well co-ordinated response from all sections of the health service as well as from the social services and the non-govermental organisations. The nursing contribution to that response is already significant but it has not yet reached its full potential. The role of the nurse as carer is already well defined, but the role of the nurse as educator, informing the public about HIV, could be further developed. More nurses need educating. At present only one AIDS course unit for nurses exists offering a basic introduction to HIV and its epidemiology, and to issues of sexuality and prejudice and bereavement counselling. That is a good start but the course is available at only 36 centres in England.
So far 3,000 nurses have undertaken the course. There are 28,000 district nurses and health visitors throughout the UK. HIV poses the greatest single challenge to public health this century. Some people who become ill with AIDS may move around the country, perhaps to relatives in rural areas where people with AIDS might not be expected to live. HIV demands a high degree of awareness among nursing staff. It is not restricted to so-called high risk groups. The ability of the virus to strike any person regardless of sex or age means that the disease can spread through all sections of the population. Community nurses, occupational health nurses or practice nurses need to be properly prepared to meet that challenge.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell your Lordships how community nursing teams will be organised. Will they be monitored and evaluated by family health service authorities? How will collaboration between local authorities work? With the involvement of local authorities, FHSAs, health authorities and voluntary agencies and the need for confidentiality there are question marks. Good practice must be worked out so that there is a clear strategy and framework for the provision of community health services in general and wider access to education and training for staff specifically on AIDS.
Last week I attended the launch of a book Terminal Care for People with AIDS at the Mildmay Hospital. It has been produced by Ruth Sims, a nurse, and

1133
Veronica Moss, a doctor, and should be of great help to GPs, nurses and other carers. The book was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
There is concern about future funding for some people who are HIV positive, who come to this country, particularly from Italy, Spain, Brazil and Africa, and who then become ill and need treatment and care. Perhaps they come here because we have better facilities. Perhaps the World Health Organisation could hold a contingency fund so that the country which cares for those unfortunate people can be reimbursed. My noble friend Lady Hooper is expert in Spanish and has a special relationship with Spain. Does she agree that that suggestion is worth considering? Otherwise, who will provide the necessary funds?
There is concern about the way in which prisoners with AIDS are treated in our prisons. I have been told that prisoners who have been taking drugs for the virus have been moved to other prisons without their drugs and without the knowledge of the doctor whose care they are under. The health service and the prison service should work closely together. Can the noble Baroness reassure the House that prisoners will not be moved from one prison to another without their medication? I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that it would be much more humane for prisoners with AIDS to be allowed to go outside the prison walls and to die in hospice-type care when the time comes for them to die.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Government have given a great deal of money to deal with AIDS. That is true, but health care has become very expensive indeed. The AIDS dilemma moves very fast. There is still a great deal to do and learn. It is important that there is co-operation and a helpful attitude among those working in the field. When there is a shortage of money there may be the danger that the problem will be denied.
The spread of AIDS by injecting drug users has been and still is a great problem. The good needle exchange schemes seem to be paying off. Liverpool has one of the lowest figures for HIV in the country and should be congratulated. I chair an organisation called Phoenix House which rehabilitates drug addicts. HIV has not helped morale. We are now establishing a safe house for people with AIDS called the Fountain House.
All of those facilities cost money. It is encouraging that there are generous people raising money for so many needs. Tribute should be paid to organisations such as Crusaid and the people from the arts world who have done so much. As has been said, Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, through her frequent presence at events and centres for AIDS, helps to keep up much needed morale. Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret has also helped.
I end with a plea to the Minister. Recently it has been reported in the press that in the USA three patients caught AIDS from their dentists. It is important that the Department of Health looks at that question and makes it known how the infection was spread as there will be many worried people. The
1134
report in the Evening Standard was vague about how the infection was spread. Every precaution should be taken to stem the spread of AIDS.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have apologised for missing the first few speeches in the debate. Like them, I thought that I was early for a six o'clock debate but found that I was late for a five o'clock debate.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for introducing the debate. I should like also to express my thanks to several noble Lords who have referred in friendly terms to my article in the Independent.
I am very conscious that this debate is taking place at a time of crisis in the Gulf and of the contrast between the two crises. It is certain that even this year the number of casualties the human race will suffer from AIDS will be a multiple of the number of casualties the human race will suffer from war. Whereas we know that this war will end within a reasonable time, we have to look forward to an AIDS epidemic which in all probability will kill increasing numbers of people through many, if not all, of the decades of the next century.
It is remarkably difficult to understand what is happening. The AIDS virus seems to have a psychological advantage because of the average 10-year delay between infection with HIV and contraction of the full-scale disease. If even now people were thinking rather of the infections taking place in 1991 than of the deaths, which amount to perhaps only a tenth of those infections, some of which were contracted as far back as the late 1970s, there would be much stronger public awareness of what is happening and a much stronger public reaction. I believe that we shall need a public reaction appropriate to the 1990s and not, as we have now, a public reaction which is only as alert as the infections of the early 1980s have made it.
Last week I went to the World Health Organisation and had a meeting with Dr. Merson, head of the appropriate department. I have also had an opportunity to have discussions with various experts in Britain, including Professor Anderson. He is a very distinguished world authority on AIDS and the HIV virus. There are certain conclusions which seem to me to be pretty generally agreed. These conclusions have been referred to in the debate, and in some cases I am repeating what other noble Lords have already said.
The first conclusion is that we are indeed dealing with a long-term, worldwide, pandemic disease. In America and in Europe the disease originally tended to have homosexual transmission. This undoubtedly misled the public in the United States and Europe into believing that it is primarily a homosexual disease. It is no such thing. At least 60 per cent. of present cases were contracted by heterosexual contact, and that percentage seems certain to continue to rise and is likely to end up at 80 to 90 per cent. or more.
The second point which I believe is universally agreed is the truly terrible situation that exists in

1135
Africa. The disease spread through central Africa and is now spreading through western Africa. The problem is not so serious in Islamic North Africa—the Arab lands—or in South Africa. However, the effect is devastating across central and western Africa. The situation there is that the rate of infection with HIV has already passed the 5 million mark. Nobody knows for sure how many HIV infections there are in Africa. The estimate is 5 million. But it is worth bearing in mind that that estimate has had to be doubled in the last three years, and a rate of doubling in three years offers a truly grim forecast for the future.
The World Health Organisation believe that approximately one in 40 of all adults in that part of Africa are now infected, and the rate of infection is approximately equal as between men and women. As a result of transmission from mothers they expect that 10 million children will be infected with HIV in the course of the 1990s. Of all the current statistics, this strikes one as perhaps the most tragic. On top of the 10 million children in Africa infected with HIV, almost all of whom will die within five years—because the disease takes a much more rapid course in children—there will be 10 million left as orphans. This is happening in a continent which is already poor and which does not have the resources to deal with this disease or indeed with its other existing medical problems. There is a real danger that as the disease, which started mainly in the cities, spreads to the villages irreparable damage will be done to the social structure of these African nations as the very people who are running these societies are destroyed.
It is also agreed that the disease is beginning to spread to that part of the world which so far has hardly been infected. As we all know, the disease exists across North America and Western Europe. It does not feature very much on the other side of what used to be the Berlin Wall. It is very prevalent in Africa; it is seriously prevalent in the Caribbean; and it is prevalent, and getting worse, in Latin America. But it is now beginning to spread into the main land mass of Asia. The first evidence of it apparently came from Thailand, which seems to have been infected by its tourist trade and through the tourist brothels.
The infection has also spread to India. Tests which have been done on the population of prostitutes in many of the major Indian cities—Delhi, Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, and so on—show that rates of infection of between 30 and 70 per cent. are to be found in those groups. In India, as in Africa, there are large numbers of labourers who leave their villages either as single men or leaving their wives behind, and who have a strong tendency to use those prostitutes while they are in their work status before returning home. There are said to be 4 million such men in Bombay, and 50 per cent. of the 100,000 prostitutes in Bombay are said to be HIV positive.
In addition, we have the first warnings coming from China. We now have the disease marching forward into the land mass of Asia. Asia contains 60 per cent. of the world's population. In terms of AIDS cases, it has less than half of 1 per cent. at the moment.
1136
Therefore, I think we must expect that on the most favourable basis Asia is going to become infected in the 1990s in the same kind of way, though not necessarily to the same degree throughout, as Europe was infected in the 1980s. Asia is approximately 10 years only behind us.
This world problem is going to have to be met by world measures. We have shown—rightly, I think—what a world response through the United Nations we can make, to meeting a political and military crisis of aggression, but is that not disproportionate to the world efforts being made to confront what is a much greater threat to mankind?
I should like to add a couple of reflections about the situation in this country. There is a misconception among the public, fostered to a degree by some of the sensational press, which does not always give us the most accurate information, that somehow we are at the centre of affairs in this matter. We are not. We are part of a particular phase of the epidemic, and we are part of the European part. We match the pattern of northern European countries, and we have a percentage of HIV infection very similar to that of Belgium or Germany. Fortunately, we are considerably below that of southern Europe, where, because of shared needles, there has been a more serious epidemic. We are relatively fortunate in the development of the epidemic so far in this country. From the point of view of world health we are not a particularly sensational case.
So far, we have taken only the first steps which are natural and appropriate to deal with so dangerous and lethal a disease. I believe that we must undertake further public health education, particularly in the schools. It must be right that every schoolchild on a national basis should be fully informed about the risks that he or she will have inevitably to face in adult life. In my view they should be informed on a basis of science. They should be told the facts. They should be told the steps which can be taken to make their own lives more safe. Those steps include limiting their sexual partners. The only real safety will be fidelity to their sexual partner. Nevertheless limitation is of vital importance. Unless we have adequate health education in schools, we shall have unnecessary cases of this disease as it spreads from its initial homosexual orientation into the heterosexual community.
I am completely convinced that if we knew where we already stand, attitudes toward testing, counselling of those tested and tracing would be radically different to those which exist at present. I do not believe that the medical community, though itself divided, will be willing, as the percentage of HIV infected people in the population grows, to go on treating everybody alike, tested and untested. One already hears of cases of people doing medical work who are extremely reluctant to treat high risk patients who have not been tested if they do not know whether they are dealing with the active disease. Therefore I am certain that during the 1990s we shall have to move in a thoroughgoing way toward testing, counselling and tracing. I believe that, if we have to make that move, the earlier we bring ourselves to make it, the better it

1137
will be. We must remember that because of the delay inherent in the latency period of the disease in HIV and AIDS, it is always 10 years later than we think.
7.2 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for initiating this important debate. I must also give my apologies to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate, which was due to hospital commitments.
My involvement in this subject is as president of the Mildmay Mission hospital, which was a NHS hospital serving the people of Hackney until it was closed in 1982, being surplus to requirements. The hospital was allowed to reopen three years later as an early version of the self-governing hospital. Thereafter we had much closer co-operation with health authorities. In 1988 within the hospital we opened a hospice for those dying of AIDS. It turned out to be the first of its kind in Europe.
Mildmay deaconesses first cared for people dying of cholera in 1866. The hospital today is particularly well suited to that kind of work—treating people with AIDS who are considered by some to be like the lepers of old. Many have been thrown out of their homes, sacked from their jobs and even rejected by their friends. There have been many distinguished visitors to the hospital; they have been deeply moved by the plight of the people there. They have also been impressed by the dedicated and superb care that is given. The attitude of most distinguished visitors is noticeably changed when they meet people who are living with AIDS.
The hospital provides continuing and terminal care for those with advanced disease. Many patients are admitted apparently dying. But when their infections are treated and the symptoms controlled they recover and leave the hospital, although often returning later having suffered a relapse. So the establishment differs from the usual type of hospice where active treatment would not normally be appropriate.
Respite care is another important aspect of the work. The aim is to have as many as possible of the patients nursed at home. A smaller percentage may need rehabilitation after suffering the effects of a stroke as a complication of the disease. Such patients respond very well to intensive rehabilitation treatment.
Education is another important activity of the hospital. It trains other National Health Service personnel and people from abroad in how to deal with AIDS patients who are being cared for at home as well as those in hospital. There is an ever increasing number of mothers who have AIDS and of children with AIDS. The hospital tries to cater for that need but facilities will need to be improved. It has been reckoned in New York that within a few years it will have 78,000 children with AIDS. The mothers are reluctant to come into hospital and leave behind their children as the children would have to go into care.
We are very grateful to the many people from all parts of the country who have loyally supported the hospital. We are particularly grateful to the Member
1138
of Parliament, Mr. Peter Shore, who has been an absolute tower of strength throughout the years with all the help that he has given. We also thank the regional health authority and the Department of Health which, as usual, are being constructive and practical in helping to make the hospital the success that it is. But very much more remains to be done.
I underline what my noble friend Lord Butterfield said about the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Donald Acheson. He played a crucial role in alerting the country to the danger of AIDS at a time when very few people were taking any notice. He went on and on until they did take notice—all credit to him.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, there is a stigma attached to having the HIV test, even if it proves negative. The Minister for Health is working hard to put that matter right. Some people have difficulty obtaining life insurance just because they have had the AIDS test. The fact that it was negative and that the reason for the test was a blood transfusion given at a time when donor blood was not being tested does not seem to carry any weight.
The tragedy of the disease is that many people need not develop it at all provided that they change their behaviour. Sadly, even if behaviour in many developing countries were to be changed overnight, those countries will still lose one third of their populations. In some countries the number will be even higher. That is the same order of mortality which obtained during the plagues in the Middle Ages. Changing the behaviour of mankind seems to be exceptionally difficult. It is imperative that much more effort and funding are put into developing further the excellent work of the Health Education Authority. More money must be found for research and for supporting the caring work of the many institutions which are involved and which will be needed increasingly in the future. Education is of great importance. However, as was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, there is more to the issue than education. There is a spiritual dimension which we ignore at our peril.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I, too, sought advice from the usual channels about the time at which the debate would start. However, unlike certain other noble Lords, I did not heed the advice and was able to be in my place to hear the entire speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. Other noble Lords may learn not to be as credulous in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has been indefatigable in his efforts to spread knowledge of this serious disease not merely in this House but among Government circles and elsewhere. He is right to turn our attention to the subject when we are pre-occupied with other lethal events elsewhere. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, that however many lives are lost in the Middle East it will be as nothing compared with the number of lives lost as a result of this disease. In saying that, I do not ignore the words of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. He told us that natural defences might re-emerge to combat the

1139
disease, that it does not necessarily have to be fatal and that the virus might modify itself in time, as has been the case in respect of many other viruses.
I was delighted to read the article in the Independent by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. I was delighted not only by its contents but because it appeared in the Independent which is not the usual publication in which his words appear. The fact that they have suggests a move to more liberal attitudes than those which he has previously held. The article covered the subject extremely effectively, as did the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. However, both omitted to disclose the extent of the infection in Great Britain. The reason is that they do not know. We ought to know, and it is a matter to which I shall turn presently.
I do not intend to go over ground that has already been covered so well by many distinguished speakers but to ask one or two questions before coming to my main point which concerns testing. Reference has been made to the need for AIDS sufferers to have employment where possible. Does the Government's policy remain the same? When AIDS first became a common talking point and we knew of the dangers I was delighted to hear Mr. Kenneth Clarke—who I believe was then Minister for Employment—state that if someone were to be dismissed from employment due to being found to be HIV positive he or she would have good grounds for taking the case to an industrial tribunal, and winning. I commend his statement but ask the Minister whether that remains the Government's view. If so, will they express it with the same clarity?
A great deal has been said about funds. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was right in saying that funds are insufficient and that they must be increased. However, the total amount does not matter; what matters is what is done with them. We must decide on the best way of using the funds that become available for dealing with AIDS. Research is essential. However, in this country a great deal of the research rests on the shoulders of people who have clinical responsibility for the care of AIDS patients. It is not carried out by people elsewhere in the research field who have time to do it. I believe that we are being overtaken by the United States where funds and resources for research are greater. I hope that we are able to compete with the United States on equal terms in discovering an effective therapeutic agent and an effective vaccine. They have not yet been discovered and a great deal of money will be required in order to do so.
Money is also needed for counselling. Many noble Lords have mentioned the importance of the work done by the voluntary sector. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark believes that counselling in this country is a little too professional. Perhaps he will forgive me if I disagree with him, though I know what he meant. I believe that counselling cannot be too professional. The right reverend Prelate believes that people need someone with the common touch to whom they can speak. They need to feel that the counsellor is not a
1140
professional. However, properly trained professional counsellors will conduct themselves in such a manner that patients will not feel that they are dealing with a professional.
It is important to remember that the shortage of social workers and the inadequacy of their training means that counselling people with AIDS can be psychologically damaging and dangerous to the counsellor. The counsellor becomes attached to a patient and gradually develops a relationship with him as he cares for him through a long illness. When in the fullness of time the patient dies the counsellor moves on to another patient to whom he will become equally attached. Again, that relationship will build and progress for months. That patient will eventually die and the counsellor will again move on. Careful professional training is required to enable a social worker to escape from psychological damage. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that adequate funds will be made available for the training and provision of counsellors.
I hope that the debate does more than merely spread additional knowledge about this important subject. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for introducing it. I remember that the first debate on the subject in this House was an Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. A number of noble Lords who have spoken today also spoke on that occasion. I said that five questions needed to be answered. For example we need to know the nature and identity of the virus responsible, the method of transmission, and more about the incubation period. Four of my questions have been answered but one has not. It is the extent of the invasion of the virus into British society. We do not know, and will not know, the answer until we have a proper system of testing.
During Question Time in this House recently I stated that when, as a doctor, I have taken blood for testing the patient has first given general consent to the blood being tested. Indeed, one never takes blood without asking the patient for consent. When blood is tested, say, ante-natally, before an operation or for many routine purposes, the doctor does not ask the patient whether he or she is agreeable to a sample being taken. He does not then ask whether he can count the patient's red cells, white cells and platelets. The particulars of the testing are not specified; consent is consent. I believe that we have reached the time when samples of blood having been taken for testing, one must assume that the patient's consent allows the blood to be tested for anything, including HIV.
The difficulty is that several people believe that to test the blood for HIV without having obtained the patient's specific consent would amount to an assault. I do not agree with that. I am not an authority on common law but that view has never been tested in the courts. However, it is a fact that the General Medical Council, the body responsible for medical ethics, has given such advice.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, the distinguished president of the GMC, is not in the Chamber. He was a short while ago. He had

1141
that matter very much in his hands at one time. Advice was given to doctors that they must not test for HIV without the specific consent of the patient. I believe that advice to be wrong and that it is high time for it to be amended. I should like to ask the noble Baroness to address herself specifically to that point when she replies. What progress is being made to enable doctors, without fear of any possible legal or other consequences, to carry out tests for HIV on all blood samples taken from patients in all circumstances?
When that is done we shall have a real knowledge of the extent of the problem. We can guess, as noble Lords have done throughout this debate, at what the figure will be by the year 2010. We should know, and until we do know I do not believe that we will make the necessary progress with these vital matters.
I am not quite as wedded to education as is everybody else. I do not honestly believe that education will diminish the popularity of sexual intercourse among the young. I agree with the right reverend Prelate who said that sex is fun. Young people know that. I know that I should prefer them to play cricket and that we were perhaps rather more selective. However, I do not believe that education will do the trick.
Noble Lords may remember that there was an epidemic of venereal disease during the Second World War. There was a massive government education programme. About what could they educate? They could merely educate people not to have sexual intercourse with people suffering from syphilis. That was not an easy educational platform. The real results were obtained when we found a therapeutic agent to cure those diseases or, what was more important, to render the patient non-infective once under treatment. That was the vital step in getting rid of pulmonary tuberculosis. Once patients were under treatment, they ceased to be infective. Having ceased to be infective, the number of cases in society was gradually reduced. Therefore, the first step is to find an effective method of treatment which not merely delays or cures the process of the disease but renders patients non-infective.
Secondly, we must make progress with pioneering and developing a vaccine which will prevent people developing the disease. In order to do that, it is necessary to find out the extent of the problem. Only when that has been done will the necessary funds be made available, particularly in a society which at present is market led.
I know that the pharmaceutical companies are very conscious of the fact that there will be a huge market for a new drug which cures AIDS, renders patients non-infective or protects them from infection. However, we really need to know the extent of the problem.
I do not wish people to feel that there is an element of compulsion about this. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to the Vaccination Act of 1889. That is a long time ago. It was not
1142
repealed until the National Health Act 1946. There are a whole number of vaccination Acts which made vaccination compulsory.
Noble Lords may remember that during the Second World War, when there was an epidemic of venereal disease, certain statutes were passed whereby any person who became infected was obliged by law to give the identity of the person from whom the infection had been contracted. The person named was summoned in for treatment. There was a law which provided for compulsory treatment. It was not terribly effective; at least however it was a precedent. So there have been statutes. Is it not time therefore that we looked at this matter? Is it not time that the noble Baroness was able to tell us that a campaign will be carried out—not necessarily a voluntary campaign although that would be more successful than a compulsory one—so that all blood taken for any purpose is automatically tested for the presence of HIV?
If it is tested and an individual sample is found positive, then there is the further problem of what to do with the results. Clearly they must remain confidential and should be revealed only to the patient. Certain steps must also be taken thereafter to protect the patient. Until that step is taken, we shall not have taken a positive step at all. If we take that step, then I believe that very positive results will emerge from this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
7.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, this has been a thoughtful and constructive debate. We have been privileged, as so often in your Lordships' House, that so many noble Lords have spoken from personal knowledge and expertise.
The Government welcome the opportunity given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to take stock of the situation worldwide as regards the HIV and AIDS pandemic and to report the action which the UK Government have taken in support of the World Health Organisation in its fight to contain the spread of HIV and AIDS through its global programme on AIDS.
We all recognise the sterling work of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS. This group has done much in support of the UK strategy on AIDS and we are grateful to the noble Lord and his colleagues for their efforts to help maintain HIV and AIDS high on the national and parliamentary agenda. Indeed, my honourable friend, the Minister for Health has, I understand, recently written to the noble Lord, expressing her appreciation for the work of the all-party parliamentary group.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to remind your Lordships briefly of the elements of the Government's strategy and in broad terms of our approach to them, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me to do. Clearly our primary objective must be to curb so far as is possible the spread of HIV infection here and

1143
abroad. But in addition the Government have taken steps to ensure that appropriate services are available to meet the needs of people infected with HIV or with AIDS itself. To achieve these aims we have instituted campaigns to educate and inform the public and those whose behaviour may place them at special risk; we have set up monitoring and surveillance programmes to assess the progress of the epidemic within the UK; we have contributed to the research effort both here and worldwide, primarily in the important area emphasised by noble Lords in the course of the debate, to find a vaccine against HIV infection and a cure for the disease itself; and we have given substantial earmarked funds amounting to almost £150 million in the current year to the NHS and organisations within the statutory and voluntary sectors as the Government's contribution towards the costs of preventing the further spread of HIV and of providing appropriate diagnostic, treatment, care and support services.
There are few areas of government that are not concerned with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. For this reason, we have taken steps to ensure the closest co-operation between interested government departments. This is reflected at ministerial level by discussions through the usual arrangements and at official level by an inter-departmental group and a further official group to co-ordinate educational work across government. We also have access to scientific and professional advice through the Chief Medical Officers' Expert Advisory Group on AIDS. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have commended the work of that group.
The UK Government have ensured that the social, legal and ethical issues associated with HIV disease are addressed with care and sensitivity and in the context of the human rights of people with HIV and AIDS and without intervening unnecessarily in the ethical and moral issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and others referred. On that I was pleased to hear the views of the right reverend Prelate.
As regards public education and prevention, the UK was one of the first countries to mount a mass media AIDS public education campaign aimed at raising levels of knowledge and awareness among the public at large. I am pleased at the acknowledgment of the success of that campaign and confirm that the Health Education Authority will continue to seek to find the best way of conveying the important message of prevention.
In the field of care and treatment both the voluntary sector and the National Health Service have provided centres of excellence and innovation. Examples have been mentioned during the course of the debate so perhaps I need refer only to those within the National Health Service, which include the Kobler Centre, St. Mary's Hospital Home Care Team and the Newcastle Community Care Centre. The work in the voluntary sector is very much admired and respected by all.
The United Kingdom's strategy and our achievements so far are highly regarded internationally. The
1144
public at large, the health service, those who work in the other statutory agencies concerned and the volunteers who have worked tirelessly to assist and care for people with HIV infection, and indeed the Government, can be justified in feeling a sense of pride in our achievements both to prevent wider spread and to provide care and treatment with compassion and understanding for those who are infected or have become ill. In saying that, I do not wish in any way to suggest complacency. There is clearly a need to keep all our achievements under constant review.
Perhaps I may turn to the situation worldwide. The debate has recognised that the HIV and AIDS pandemic continues to worsen, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, South America and Asia. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, for his contribution on this part of the theme. The World Health Organisation has recently completed a detailed review and now estimates that some 8 to 10 million people may be infected with HIV. WHO further estimates that by the year 2000 some 25 to 30 million people may be infected, 10 million or more of them children. So far over 95 per cent. of reported cases have been in younger adults between the ages of 20 and 49 years. As the noble Lord referred specifically to Asia, I should also confirm that the World Health Organisation had previously estimated that the figures would be 1 to 1.5 million infected in that region. In the light of recent data, that now appears to be a substantial underestimate.
We are also aware of the Ugandan situation, on which the right reverend Prelate spoke so knowledgeably. It is important that we draw what lessons we can from the experiences of others.
In helping to combat the global epidemic the Government have so far committed some £30 million to programmes to prevent the spread of HIV and given wholehearted support to the WHO global programme on AIDS which takes the leading role in co-ordinating and implementing international action. AIDS is also high on the agenda of the European Community, which has set up a working group to formulate a Europe-wide strategy. Both within the European Community and further afield the Government have taken every opportunity to encourage international debate and the exchange of information about all aspects of HIV and AIDS. Many noble Lords will, for example, recall that in January 1988 we jointly hosted with the World Health Organisation a world summit of health ministers on programmes of AIDS prevention. That was an unprecedented and highly successful event attended by ministers from 147 countries. In addition we shared in our day-to-day contacts with other countries the experience we gained from our programme of public education and prevention.
I agree that in this very difficult area that programme of public education and prevention is vital. It is particularly true, as has been said, that in the absence of a cure for the disease or a vaccine against infection education and prevention must remain the cornerstone of our strategy. The first phase of the UK-wide public information campaign began in early

1145
1986. That was followed in early 1987 by the highly successful and widely supported mass media campaign which ran under the banner of "Don't Die of Ignorance". These campaigns and those which have since been developed by the Health Education Authority have raised and maintained to a high degree public awareness and knowledge of the risks of HIV infection, how the virus is transmitted and the measures people can take to protect themselves and others.
Noble Lords may recall that in November 1989 the Department of Health and the HEA jointly convened an expert symposium to assess the prospects for the wider spread of HIV in the UK. Three key conclusions were reached at that symposium: first, that all three main modes of transmission were well established—by penetrative sexual intercourse, by drug misusers sharing contaminated injecting equipment, who can of course additionally then pass the virus onto their sexual partners and from mother to unborn infant. Secondly, the symposium concluded that HIV continued to pose a serious threat to the health of the nation. Thirdly, it concluded that the potential for the wide-spread dissemination of HIV in the general population exists, particularly among heterosexuals and injecting drug users. The symposium and the television campaign of expert testimony that followed in early 1990 can have left no one in any doubt of that.
Our figures show—indeed the contributions to the debate this evening show also—that there has been a rapid increase in cases of HIV and AIDS among women. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, drew attention specifically to that point. As an indication of this, a recent survey in the Home Counties showed that in inner London one in 2,000 women recently delivered of a child was infected with HIV. In outer London the figure was one in 3,000, and outside those areas, one in 20,000. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, quoted figures from Scotland.
Figures have been attained by anonymised screening of Guthrie cards, which are also used to screen new born babies. A leaflet was issued to explain that procedure which emphasises that if the patient concerned has any questions or objections to the baby's left-over blood or urine being used for that purpose, the doctor, nurse or midwife would be happy to speak in confidence. There is emphasis that the wishes of the patient will be respected.
With those increasing figures in mind, it was particularly appropriate that the theme for World AIDS Day on 1st December last year was "Women and AIDS". This country responded magnificently and included many national and local events accompanied by welcome and helpful coverage by the broadcasting and press media. In that context a notable example is the work that Margaret Johnston is carrying forward at the Royal Free Hospital in encouraging women to come forward for help and in giving them access to appropriate services. I also applaud the work of Positively Women, a self-help group for women who are HIV positive. The group's new centre and offices were recently opened by Her
1146
Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government were able to contribute to the funding of the new premises.
In the latest phase of the mass media campaign, launched shortly after World AIDS Day, we focused on the testimony of people who have become infected. The objective is to increase people's personal perception of the risks so that they will translate awareness and knowledge into personal action. The intention is not to alarm and scare unnecessarily, although I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Colwyn in that respect. That is why we recognise the importance of counselling.
Mass media work is now being supported by HIV prevention work at local level. Health authorities have been asked to work with local government authorities and the voluntary sector to develop prevention initiatives geared to local needs and aimed at encouraging changes in personal behaviour. Coordinators are being appointed in districts to help carry forward that work. Support from the centre will be provided by the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority. In November last year, we convened a national seminar as a first step in the exchange of ideas and information and to help co-ordinators place their work in a national context.
In addition to campaign work at national and local level aimed at the general public, specific campaigns will continue to be directed to sections of the population whose behaviour may place them at special risk and to those where particular educational approaches may be required. To this effect we are discussing with the Health Education Authority the approaches needed to ensure the continued success of our national campaign work. Other governmental departments will also continue to develop educational work connected with their particular fields of interest. This of course includes educational material for children and young people in and out of schools. The Department of Health will continue to work closely with the Department of Education and Science to ensure that up-to-date and appropriate materials are available for use in schools.
We shall also continue to monitor carefully the spread of HIV in the United Kingdom by means including our programme of anonymised serosurveys under the direction of the Medical Research Council. We hope that the results of these surveys will help us in planning services for those infected with HIV or with AIDS and in targeting national and local prevention work. We continue to spend more in the area of HIV and AIDS public education than any other single health promotion programme. This is a measure of the importance we attach, and shall continue to attach, to reducing the impact of this disease on the population of this country.
A number of themes, as it were, came up in the course of the debate on which questions were specifically put. One of them was insurance. Perhaps I may quote my honourable friend the Minister for Health who said in another place recently:
"We occasionally hear of letters from insurers which imply, or are taken to imply, that the Government require

1147
insurers to send supplementary life style questionnaires to applicants for life insurance. This is not the case, and we bring cases that come to our attention to the Association of British Insurers so that it can take the matter up with the company involved. We no longer refer to risk groups, as it is a person's behaviour which determines whether they are at risk of contracting HIV, not their membership of a particular group in society. Our public education campaign messages reflect this".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/90; col. 241.]
Again, my honourable friend is discussing with the Association of British Insurers the effect of the HIV test questions which insurers ask on the proposal forms for life insurance. We are concerned that these questions should not prejudice public health concerns. The British Market Research Bureau has been jointly commissioned by the Department of Health and the ABT to carry out a survey of public perceptions. The survey is made up of four constituent surveys of experts, advice workers and others, the general public and young adults.
The bureau carried out the interviewing late last year and we have just received the draft report, which will inform our further discussions. A point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about the situation in the United States and Canada as regards insurance. The position of the United States is more complicated because of the need for most people to have private health insurance. Canadian guidelines for insurers are not altogether clear. The guidance produced by the Canadian Health and Life-Insurance Association, which has been sent to us, suggests that insurers can be justified in asking about prior negative tests in this respect.
That brings me to the other main theme concerning testing. The view of the expert advisory group on AIDS is now that if people think they have been at risk they should consider seeking a test and having counselling. That reflects recent studies which suggest that certain asymptomatic people benefit from early treatment. I was asked why this testing should not be made more routine. The decision to take an HIV test is one that must be considered very carefully. Legal advice obtained by the BMA advised that specific consent to HIV testing was needed in addition to the consent obtained for any other medical intervention carried out at the same time.
The Royal College of Surgeons has issued guidelines this very January. The council says that it would be impracticable and illogical at the present time to call for routine testing of all patients for HIV before each of the 3.3 million surgical operations that are performed in England and Wales each year. Nevertheless, the council strongly endorses the recently expressed view of the chief medical officers that members of the public who consider themselves to be at risk of HIV infection should submit to voluntary testing.
As regards the question of anonymised surveys which I touched on earlier, information is urgently needed in this country about the level of HIV infection in the population. These surveys have been designed to provide invaluable information on the overall prevalence of HIV infection by age and sex among the population as a whole and in different parts of the
1148
country and also the rate at which it is increasing in the population at large. We need this information and so do the statutory and voluntary sectors. It is needed to plan for appropriate services and preventive initiatives. Information about the level of HIV in the general population cannot be extrapolated from people who voluntarily seek a named test.
As regards contact tracing, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, the issue of contact tracing of people with HIV is a delicate one, as the noble Lord acknowledged. There is good evidence that a number of people will not come forward for help if they consider that pressures will be put on them to name their partners. However, there may now be an advantage for people to know whether they are positive or not. It has always been the policy of the staff of genito-urinary medicine clinics to counsel people who are HIV positive on the desirability of informing their partners, but handling must be at the discretion of the staff of the clinics. There can be no doubt that the wishes of the persons concerned are and must remain paramount.
It was also suggested that some doctors might refuse to treat people with HIV positive tests. That is something that we must leave with the General Medical Council, which has indicated that it expects doctors to treat all patients.
I now move to the third main theme, which is funding. I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that we should be concerned with not so much the funds but what we do with them. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who referred to the misuse of ring-fenced AIDS moneys by certain regional and district health authorities. I can reassure him that these matters which emerged from the department's scrutiny of AIDS reports have been fully followed up. The authorities in question have taken corrective action. Next year guidance on the use of money will make it quite clear that the virement of money for the purposes of cash management is not acceptable.
Reference was also made to local authority spending being increased by only 4 per cent. That does not take into account the additional help that we have given this year by continuing joint finance money to certain inner London boroughs even though their funding was always due to cease this year. The extra £1 million brings the real additional level of resources to 14 per cent.
We recognise too that the complexity of any future contracting arrangements might affect services for people with AIDS or HIV and therefore we need to ensure that a confidential self-referral system is maintained and that highly expensive services, which in some places are at an early stage of planning and are not yet embedded in the health service infrastructure, are continued and maintained. In response to this we have ensured that the earmarked funding will continue in 1991–92. It will continue to be provided, as now, on a catchment basis rather than on a district of residence basis. A working party will be established to resolve problems of preserving confidentiality and freedom of access to services while operating district of

1149
residence-based funding—a very important consideration in this area. This should ensure that AIDS services will be in a strong position to flourish and develop in a system of managed competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, also referred to the local authority associations' officer working group and the removal from it of central government funding. Funding to this group was provided on a pump priming basis for three years, by which time local authorities ought to have developed sufficient concern for AIDS services to be willing to pay for the group themselves. It is sad that they do not want to do so. We are currently considering a bid from the associations for a revised working group. We want to be certain that the work of this group will be taken seriously through the whole country and will influence those who take managed decisions relating to the delivery of services. Officials will be writing to the associations shortly.
A great many questions were asked. Perhaps noble Lords will bear with me as I try to cover as many of them as possible. On the question of AIDS among prisoners, the Government attach a high priority to measures designed to prevent the transmission of HIV in prisons and other custodial settings. To this end two educational packages have been produced and the video AIDS Inside and Out" for prison inmates has been widely acclaimed. Governors have been urged to use it extensively. The Home Office has also encouraged prison administrations to liaise with health authorities in setting up local prevention initiatives for prisoners, including those on release.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the right reverend Prelate sought certain assurances. I can confirm that my colleagues in the Home Office are concerned to ensure that prisoners who are moved from one prison to another do not experience any interruption in their medical care and treatment. Furthermore, Home Office policy for the management and care of prisoners with AIDS envisages that they will be looked after by the prison medical service at times when they are relatively well and removed to an outside hospital during acute phases of their illness.
The PMS has already received co-operation from NHS hospitals in treating the 21 AIDS patients it has had to date. Eight of those patients have died in custody but all were in an outside hospital at the time of death. Seven other patients were receiving care in a hospital or hospice at the time of their release—in some cases early release—from prison. It seems to me that these figures are an encouraging indication that the services concerned are collaborating successfully to ensure that prisoners receive specialised care when they need it and that when sadly they become terminally ill they do not die in prison. I entirely agree that a prisoner has as much right as any other citizen to be able to die with dignity.
In October 1990 the report of an efficiency scrutiny of the prison medical service was published. Department of Health officials participated in the scrutiny and in the steering group which was set up to prepare an action plan. While the report looks at the
1150
whole of the PMS, it also looks specifically at special groups of prisoners, including prisoners with HIV and AIDS, and should also inform our future discussions.
The effect of stress on the immune system was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Colwyn. He also referred to the place of complementary medicines. I have taken careful note of what he said and will ensure that his remarks are brought to the attention of appropriate people in the department.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me, on his extensive shopping list, about the availability of condoms via GPs' prescriptions. I can assure him that GPs are able to prescribe condoms within the known budget limits of their health authority.
On the question of dental transmission of HIV—the United States case—we have received a copy of the report of January this year in which the three possible cases of transmission are discussed. We are seeking expert advice on the possibilities it suggests. As for the National Aids Help Line, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred, since 1987 a number of successful and well regarded telephone information and advice services have been in place to provide free and confidential information to anyone in the United Kingdom concerned about HIV and AIDS. Most notable amongst these is the National Aids Help Line, operating from London and Glasgow, which is available 24 hours a day, every day. In 1990 it received nearly ¾ million calls. The help line and the other services are an invaluable and essential adjunct to the public education campaign work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made a number of points about the importance of community nurses and the vital part they can play as part of a co-ordinated response to AIDS. I shall write in detail on the points raised but I should like to make it clear that we in government share her appreciation of the key role of the community nurse in the delivery of effective community care to people with AIDS. My noble friend will also be interested to learn that we have commissioned seven educational videos for nurses in this respect. They are highly regarded.
On counselling, we have funded a joint study by the British Association of Counselling and the University of Durham to report on the availability throughout the country of counselling services for people with HIV or AIDS and to make recommendations as to training and management. The study was started in January 1990 and is due to be published this spring. We shall consider its findings carefully.
On the question of AIDS and employment, guidance was produced in March of last year which refers to the dismissal point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I can certainly supply him with a copy of the document.
In case I have not covered all the questions raised —that is quite possible since there were so many—I can assure the House that I shall study Hansard carefully and ensure that all the issues are considered within the department or, where appropriate, brought to the notice of other departments, bodies and individuals concerned. Much has been done in this

1151
difficult and crucially important area of health but as a result of the debate we are all more than ever aware that much remains to be done.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I express that gratitude not only to those who have spoken but to those who have listened. We have had quite a large number of listeners, which has been very encouraging indeed. I should like too to apologise for having told noble Lords who excused themselves to me for arriving late that I thought the debate would start at six o'clock, which is what I was informed would be the case. Their lateness is partly my fault.
There was one omission from my shopping list. The noble Baroness cannot reply to it now but I want to put it on the record. I skated over it because I thought I was running out of time. I refer to the tardy settlement of the claim of the haemophiliacs infected by contaminated blood products. I say no more about that because obviously we very much welcome the Government's conversion to the ex gratia payment. But there is also the further point in relation to non-haemophiliacs who were similarly infected through blood products or transfusions. I believe that the cost of compensating them would be in the region of 4 to 5 per cent. of what will be paid out to the haemophiliacs. The principle does not seem to be different. The effect on them and their families has been no less devastating than on the haemophiliacs and their families. I very much hope that the Government will look at that point again.
On the question of insurance, which, as the noble Baroness said, was one of the themes of the debate and which was ably introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and referred to by the noble Lords, Lord McColl and Lord Butterfield, I am encouraged to hear that Mrs. Bottomley is pursuing the matter seriously with the industry. In my view, the situation is most unsatisfactory. I say that because there are many reasons why people may take such a test; for example, responsible young people may wish to take the test prior to getting married, as may someone who has had a blood transfusion, possibly abroad. The fact that taking such a test may be marked against them by potential insurers is a great mistake. I very much hope that the Government will pursue the matter vigorously. I should point out that the matter was solved in the Netherlands by the government threatening to impose legislation. Perhaps a handy little draft Bill stored safely somewhere may be helpful in securing success in the negotiations with the industry.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate, who said that we should not concentrate only on "safer sex". He acknowledged that this is the responsibility of the Government as they are responsible for health, though not responsible for morals. Then, as I expected him to do—and quite rightly —he went on to advocate the other track of chastity and faithfulness. I commend to your Lordships that we should approach the matter
1152
on a dual-track basis; that is, that the Government should do their business, which is related to public health, and the Churches and other ethical bodies and individuals should do their business, which relates to private morality. If we approach the problem on that twin-track basis, we are much more likely to succeed. I hope that the Government noted the right reverend Prelate's rather moving remarks on the extension to the Brixton prison hospital and his idea for a hospice for prisoners.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, seemed to be criticising me for not having arranged a meeting for him at which he could air his views on natural medicine. I should like to put on record the fact that, if he chooses to approach me, I shall be happy to do so, provided that he is prepared to speak at such a meeting.
I am extremely grateful for the tributes that have been made to me and to the all-party group. I believe that one such tribute came from the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I should point out to him that, according to my recollection, the pre-history of the group was that it emerged from a small causerie of doctors which he himself organised in the very early stages, when we knew nothing of the disease, in order to inform us about it. Therefore, if anyone is the real progenitor of the group, it is the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
I was glad to hear the noble Baroness say that the Government are dedicated to curbing the spread of the disease both in this country and abroad. She actually used the word "abroad" and I believe that that probably relates to the work of the ODA in the horrifying conditions in Africa about which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and the right reverend Prelate.
The noble Baroness set out some of the Government's achievements. She was quite right to do so. I should like to pay tribute to them. As she said, she could not possibly deal with all the points raised during the debate, but no doubt she will write to us on those that were left unanswered. On the education aspect of the matter, I made one or two additional points about whether we could harness the efforts of school governors and parent governors. I hope she will follow them up.
As regards funding, the noble Baroness referred to the fact that no virement of ring-fenced funds would be permitted in future. I welcome that statement. I also hope that she will consider the point I made about looking at a possible new distribution formula for ring-fenced funds. I think that I was glad to hear what she said on the issue of open access clinics in the genito-urinary medicine field. She said that they would be continued and maintained. I believe that the words which fell from her lips were that they would be maintained on a catchment-area basis. Obviously we shall look at that proposal. It is indeed an important matter, to which reference has been made many times in your Lordships' House. We simply must keep such clinics going. I shall read what she has said with care.
I shall not make another speech, as I do not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time. However, I should like to repeat my thanks to all speakers who have taken part in the debate and all noble Lords who

1153
have listened. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for making a truly memorable effort to meet all our anxieties. I am sure that she will be writing to us to cover all the points which she was not able to deal with tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
1154
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

  IRAQ: ARMAMENTS SUPPLIED BY GERMAN FIRMS
  IRAQ: ARMAMENTS SUPPLIED BY GERMAN FIRMS
  GULF WAR: BELGIAN RESPONSE
  GULF WAR: BELGIAN RESPONSE
  KATYN MASSACRE: MEMORIAL PROJECT
  KATYN MASSACRE: MEMORIAL PROJECT
  OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: EFFECTS OF CURFEW
  OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: EFFECTS OF CURFEW
  KHIAM, SOUTH LEBANON: PRISONERS
  KHIAM, SOUTH LEBANON: PRISONERS
  GULF WAR OBJECTIVES
  GULF WAR OBJECTIVES
  GULF WAR: AMBIT OF UN RESOLUTION
  GULF WAR: AMBIT OF UN RESOLUTION
  GULF WAR: PROPOSAL FOR FURTHER UN CONSIDERATION
  GULF WAR: PROPOSAL FOR FURTHER UN CONSIDERATION
  GULF WAR: ARMS CONTROL OBJECTIONS
  GULF WAR: ARMS CONTROL OBJECTIONS
  THE GULF: POST-WAR SETTLEMENT
  THE GULF: POST-WAR SETTLEMENT
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL: MAJORITY VOTES
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL: MAJORITY VOTES
  ANTARCTICA: EC COMPETENCE
  ANTARCTICA: EC COMPETENCE
  MEAT: INSPECTION COSTS
  MEAT: INSPECTION COSTS
  CHILD TAX ALLOWANCE
  CHILD TAX ALLOWANCE
  ORAL SNUFF
  ORAL SNUFF
  LANDFILL OPERATIONS: CONTRACT ALLOCATION
  LANDFILL OPERATIONS: CONTRACT ALLOCATION