Sitting of 27 February 1991

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

    LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Disabled Facilities Grants
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review his policy on the provision of mandatory and discretionary disabled facilities grants.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): This matter is being kept under review, to ensure that grant assistance continues to help disabled people least able to afford the cost of house adaptations.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that local authorities are having to make loans to many applicants because of their inability to meet the scheme's means-testing arrangements, which require certain contributions? In many instances the loans will never be repaid because of applicants' financial circumstances. Is the Minister further aware that some elderly and disabled people are being forced into permanent care because of their inability to make a contribution for adaptations under the scheme? Bearing it in mind that the scheme's means testing arrangements run contrary to the Government's care in the community proposals, will the Minister review the operation of the means-testing arrangements and of the scheme generally?
    Mr. Yeo: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is questioning the principle of means testing, which his party did not oppose in Committee. If he is, it appears that he wants us to spend more taxpayers' money helping the best-off. If the hon. Gentleman is merely questioning the way in which means tests are undertaken in respect of adaptation grants, I assure him that we will review the system, which has been operating for less than eight months. We should like it to be up and running for a year before we undertake such a review. Nevertheless, we shall do that this summer and we will consult the associations that represent the local authorities which are administering it to ascertain how well it is operating.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend recall that the original commitment in the consultation document was for
    960
    a non-means tested operation of the grant scheme? Given that there is means testing now, is my hon. Friend aware that many disabled people are now producing examples of the way in which the system is working adversely? When he undertakes his review, will he examine carefully the need to set different criteria for means testing in respect of the disabled?
    Mr. Yeo: We will certainly examine the criteria that have operated during the first year and I shall be glad to hear the views of my hon. Friend, whose expertise in the subject is well known. The new scheme was intended to widen the range of home improvements that could be paid for by the mandatory facilities grant. There is no restriction on the size of the grant or on who can apply for one. We aim to allow more disabled people to secure more help and to enable them to live more independently and comfortably at home, if that is possible. In many cases, that objective has been achieved.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I acknowledge the dilemma that presents itself in respect of means testing, but will the Department give special consideration to new build houses, so that there might be savings to a community in the long term in the form of new homes constructed to specifications that are designed to help the disabled?
    Mr. Yeo: We have considered that. Ideally—this objective has the support of most of the voluntary organisations concerned—all new houses should meet standards of acceptability and convenience for the disabled, regardless of whether they will in the first instance be occupied by a disabled person or by a family that has a disabled member.

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish the results of investigations into the costs to local authorities of the compulsory competitive tendering legislation under the Local Government Act.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Research is being carried out by the Institute of Local Government Studies. We hope to publish the report on its first year's work in the near future. That research has shown that the cost of tendering is some 2·5 per cent. of total contract costs and that CCT has produced average savings of just under 6 per cent. in the annual cost of providing services—often linked to a higher quality of service.
    Mr. Rooney: Is the Minister aware that thousands of contracts have been called into question throughout Britain on the ground of quality? Is he further aware that hundreds of headteachers have complained about the low standard of cleaning in their schools? Will he comment on the economic consequences of thousands of part-time, low-paid local authority workers losing their jobs as a consequence of the legislation?
    Mr. Key: Of course I have read the report. That is why we are anxious to evaluate the projects as they are carried out. The Department is responsible, under legislation, for ensuring that the section 13 or section 14 notices may sometimes have to be issued. I hope that the hon.

    961
    Gentleman will agree, however, that we are interested in the quality of service and the value for money offered to the charge payers who are financing that service.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the competitive tendering legislation has enabled Conservative councillors on Medina borough council to cut community charge not once but twice, benefiting charge payers in the Isle of Wight?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Competitive tendering has played its part in that. I congratulate Medina borough council, which has cut its community charge by some 50 per cent. this year.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is it true that the survey will not reveal any substantial financial savings for local authorities? Will the report outline the position before and after compulsory competitive tendering? I put it to the Minister that a substantial number of local authorities spend a great deal of time and money on drawing up tenders, only to find that the private sector is simply not interested in tendering.
    Will the report also give comparisons relating to the quality and the full value of the service provided for poll tax payers and will it mention the decline in the proper training of personnel? I suggest that CCT represents a further failure of the Government's local government policies.
    Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman ignores the Audit Commission's claim that voluntary competitive tendering can produce savings of between 10 and 30 per cent. That is a substantial amount. We are, of course, always considering whether there should be more compulsory competitive tendering—whether the scheme should be increased. That can only be in everyone's interests. I do not think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would disagree. He wrote on 15 February:
    "It would be foolish to pretend that the jolt given to many local authorities has not had some beneficial effect in stimulating their own concentration on quality as well as improved managerial practice."

    Hostel Beds
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of hostel beds available (a) in London each night and (b) in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): The latest estimates available show that the total number of hostel bed spaces in housing association hostels, resettlement units, probation and after-care hostels and those run by local authorities in London is 22,383, and 60,142 in England as a whole. My Department does not hold figures for the rest of the United Kingdom. I take this opportunity to thank the voluntary agencies for their hard work in developing the additional places now coming forward under the rough sleepers initiative and for their help in ensuring that the cold weather emergency provision continues to remain open for an extended period.
    Mr. Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he tell us whether at those levels demand continues to be outstripped by supply—whether spare beds are
    962
    available? Will he also tell us whether the two emergency hostels opened in London during the recent severe cold spell remain open?
    Sir George Young: I assure my hon. Friend that, even on the coldest night, space was still available for those sleeping rough in London. The Paddington Green hospital, which is the largest of the emergency cold weather shelters, will stay open for six months and it is planned that the Soho shelter should remain open until the middle of April.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware of the considerable problem of homelessness in Merseyside, stretching from the Wirral to my constituency, Southport? Has he any idea what he may give the region to deal with that problem? He has recently given certain figures, but most relate to London. How much will go to Merseyside?
    Sir George Young: I believe that there is a substantial number of empty properties in Merseyside. That certainly applies to Liverpool, which has experienced a good deal of emigration. One of the difficulties facing Liverpool city council is the excess of homes and I see no reason why anyone should have any reason to sleep rough in Liverpool of all places.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing and implementing a package of measures that have gone so far to solve this difficult problem. Will my hon. Friend's Department be prepared to carry out research into whether homeless youngsters have been habitual truants from school, and thereby slipped the leash of parental and teacher control at an early age, and discover whether useful and constructive measures could be derived from such research?
    Sir George Young: My Department has commissioned some research from York university to discover more about the motivations and histories of the homeless. A substantial number of people who have been sleeping rough were in care before they came to London. Local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that once children reach the age at which they are no longer their statutory responsibility, those children still have somewhere secure to go so that they do not end up on the streets.
    Mr. Soley: Is not this a problem of the Government's own making? We did not have homeless people sleeping rough in the streets like this until we had a Tory Government. Only alcoholics and some mentally ill people slept rough before this Government came to office. I can say that as I have experience as a probation officer in the King's Cross area of London. Is the Minister aware that housing organisations and the Labour party have warned the Government that temporary hostel beds are not the answer? The real answer is real homes for real people who are sleeping in the snow. We want to know now whether the money that the Government are talking about providing will continue to be provided to the many voluntary organisations that have written to the Minister's office, but which have not received answers telling them whether they can continue the work that they started during the cold weather.
    Sir George Young: If I may say so, that is a rather simplistic analysis. The problem of rough sleeping

    963
    predates 1979. Responsibility does not rest with the Conservative party. The Manchester Evening News has reported that:
    "Homeless people are sleeping rough and begging on Manchester streets while 5,000 council houses and flats stand empty."
    For every hostel space in London, there are two move-on spaces. We are offering people the opportunity of permanent accommodation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined to build on the momentum that has been developed and bring about a situation in which no one has to sleep rough in London.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question does relate to the United Kingdom.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Did my hon. Friend see the recent programme by—surprisingly—the BBC, in which an Aberdonian youth who was sleeping in a box in London was flown back to his mother in Aberdeen and interviewed? He said that the last thing that he wanted to do was to stay in Aberdeen and take a job because he could beg £60 a day in London, and he did not stay in a hostel because he could keep the money if he did not spend it. He was returned by the BBC to London on a British Airways flight. Does not that say something about homeless people?
    Sir George Young: I did not see that programme, but there is a small number of people who abuse the hospitality of people in London by begging instead of seeking work. For every case like that, there are some genuine cases of people who do not want to sleep rough. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that we must deal with the abuses, but we must also make provision for those who do not want to sleep rough and would dearly like to move on to permanent accommodation.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a modern and fair rating system; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a modern and fair rating system; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Our review of the structure and finance of local government will look at all the options, including domestic property taxes. I hope to be able to give a first indication of our thinking in the spring.
    Mr. Patchett: Does the Secretary of State agree that the poll tax is now untenable? When will he admit that it should be abolished?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is aware that all those matters are being considered. When we have something to say, we will say it, but not until then.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Callaghan.
    Mr. Cryer rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the comments that the Secretary of State made about the poll tax when he was a
    964
    Back Bencher, will it be possible for him to remain in government if it is decided by the Cabinet to retain what he himself described as a Tory tax?
    Has the right hon. Gentleman any comment on the absurd statement by one of his predecessors that if the rating system was brought back, there would be rioting on the streets? The only rioting that has occurred has been brought about by that Tory tax, the most unfair tax that has ever been introduced—the poll tax.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that many millions of people now realise that the community charge reduction scheme is bringing them substantial reductions in community charge.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reputation over many years for radical policies is well deserved and that the best way in which he can proceed in this matter is by radical change?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is extremely flattering. I shall, if I may, refrain from comment until we produce the conclusions of the review.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable support on the Conservative Back Benches for national expenditure on schools and further education? That would achieve two objects. It would halve the community charge and make all schools grant-maintained schools responsible to parents and not inspectors, which would improve education throughout the country.
    Mr. Heseltine: I know how much my right hon. Friend is concerned about this matter. He will know from speeches that I have made that I am a strong supporter of the grant-maintained school principle. When suggesting the switch, my right hon. Friend does not draw my attention to the national taxes that he would wish to be increased to fund his proposals.
    Mr. Gould: Will the Secretary of State reassure the millions of people who want to see the back of the poll tax by making it clear that he has refused to be bound by the ideologues in his own party and that he at least is prepared, indeed anxious, to see the abandonment of the poll tax principle?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is never possible to discern any ideologues on the Conservative side of the House because there are so many on the other.
    Mr. Hayes: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is doing his best to see that the landed gentry do not riot too much on the streets of Tewkesbury, but will he do what he can to assist my poor beleaguered constituents in Harlow? Their left-wing authority has increased its expenditure by 44 per cent. this year, announced a community charge of £459, and eaten into reserves. When the review is presented, will my right hon. Friend protect people from left-wing authorities such as Harlow?
    Mr. Heseltine: As my hon. Friend is aware, by and large, it is beyond any question the practice for Labour authorities to charge significantly more community charge than the Conservatives.

    House Insulation
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what help is offered to local authority tenants to insulate their homes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry:)The Government are firmly committed to encouraging greater energy efficiency in local authority dwellings. Substantial capital resources are made available to local authorities to improve their housing stock, and advice and grants are available to tenants on low incomes to insulate their homes.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that the home insulation scheme has been reduced to the programme that is run by the energy action grants agency scheme in Newcastle and that that is leading to cowboy contractors knocking on the doors of pensioners and people on low incomes, asking for deposits in advance and then disappearing? Would not it be better to have a home insulation scheme that is properly administered and monitored by local authorities to prevent that unscrupulous abuse, to ensure that the scheme results in home improvements for council tenants and that poor people are not left in the cold?
    Mr. Baldry: The home energy efficiency scheme is an excellent scheme, to which £27 million has been made available for this financial year. That is a significant increase on the level of help that has been made available to low-income households in the past. The scheme expects to undertake 200,000 insulation jobs this year. Network installers have been registered in all parts of the country and all low-income households have access to a network installer. If the hon. Gentleman has a scintilla of evidence about the scheme not working properly, I suggest that he makes it available to my hon. Friends in the Department of Energy. The energy efficiency agency that is running the scheme is highly reputable and, I am sure, will be concerned about any suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman that any network installer is not coming up to standard. Unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give that evidence, he should stop decrying the scheme.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that a lot of money is wasted on insulation? Does he further agree that what we want is a uniform national scheme of rating for energy efficiency for buildings? At the moment, we have the national home energy rating scheme and Starpoint. Will my hon. Friend get in touch with his opposite number at the Department of Energy and ask the Department to initiate a uniform scheme, which would make it a great deal easier for my hon. Friend to honour the undertaking that his Department has given to review building regulations to take account of energy efficiency factors in home construction?
    Mr. Baldry: The methodology on which both those schemes are based has been developed by the Building Research Establishment. I have no doubt that the Starpoint and national home energy rating schemes are considering ways to ensure that there is the least possible confusion about home energy rating for local authorities and home owners.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister must be aware that about 170 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are thrown up into the atmosphere every year from homes in Britain. Will
    966
    he admit that the scheme for which his and other Departments are responsible, which seeks to reduce our energy consumption, are miserable and, at the moment, hardly doing anything to meet the problem of global warming or even our commitment to stabilise the emission of carbon dioxide by 2005? Will the Government show a radical response and announce some positive schemes that would reduce significantly the amount of carbon dioxide that is thrown into the atmosphere from homes in Britain?
    Mr. Baldry: The amounts of money that are being made available to promote energy efficiency improvements just among local authority tenants are substantial; 25 per cent. of the £3·5 billion of local authority capital investment was spent on improving heating and home insulation last year; 25 per cent. of the £450 million of estate action resources went on heating and insulation improvements; £60 million is being spent on the energy efficiency demonstration programme and, as I have already made clear, £27 million has been made available for the home energy efficiency scheme. The sums of money allocated to promote energy efficiency among local authority tenants alone are rightly substantial because we want to ensure maximum energy efficiency throughout our housing stock.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Bidwell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate on the current levels of homelessness in Greater London.
    Sir George Young: In the third quarter of 1990, local authorities in London accepted responsibility to secure accommodation for 9,350 households they found to be homeless. The latest estimate of the voluntary groups dealing with rough sleepers is that there were about 1,000 people sleeping rough in seven main areas in central London at the end of January. Many of those are now using the emergency shelters and other accommodation provided under our initiative.
    Mr. Bidwell: Will the Minister comment on the vicious and brutal 103 per cent. increase in rents for council house tenants since the Tories came back into power in the London borough of Ealing? Does not he understand that that is bound to lead to extra homelessness among those who cannot afford to pay?
    Sir George Young: I am more than happy to comment on the increase in rents in the London borough of Ealing. It is one of the many legacies that the people of Ealing have had to bear from the outgoing Labour administration, along with a record 66 per cent. increase in rates three years ago. The reason for the rent increase in the London borough of Ealing, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, is the irresponsible budget set a year ago by the outgoing Labour administration. The council assumed that it would make a profit on private sector leasing which it was never likely to make.
    Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend do something serious and immediate about the number of empty homes in councils controlled by the Labour party in London? There are 10,000 in just four Labour-controlled boroughs. Will he also do something about the millions of pounds of uncollected rents in Labour local authorities? Perhaps he

    967
    will invite Opposition Members to chase their local authorities rather than make vacuous propaganda points about homelessness in London.
    Sir George Young: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In London about 20,700 properties owned by local authorities are empty and about £360 million in rents is uncollected. There are substantial resources available which could be used to meet housing need in London.
    Mr. George Howarth rose——
    Mr. Tony Banks rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. George Howarth.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Oh come on. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) represents the Tory party in London.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is called regularly. He cannot expect to be called every day on every question of his choice.
    Mr. George Howarth: Does not the Minister recognise the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) about the connection between the provision of housing at affordable rents and the level of homelessness in London? As regard the 103 per cent. rent increase in the Conservative-controlled London borough of Ealing, will he confirm that the increase would have been even higher if the Minister had not arranged for the authority to be bailed out to the tune of £5 million? If he will confirm that, will he also say that such provision should be made to local authorities throughout the country to cushion the rent increases that his Government are forcing on them?
    Sir George Young: I must make it clear that, for obvious reasons, I played no part in the negotiations between the London borough of Ealing and my Department. The Government have taken several steps to increase the supply of affordable accommodation in Greater London, which is the subject of the question. Some £300 million has been made available, part of which is aimed at bringing voids back into use. Some of that is being spent under the tenants' incentive scheme to create vacancies in London. Some has financed homes under the private sector leasing scheme. On top of that, there is a substantial increase in the budget available to the Housing Corporation, providing an increase in the supply of affordable accommodation. The Government are taking several steps to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman raises.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what saving in the community charge there would be in 1991–92 to a couple living in Dacorum in a property with a rateable value of £200, under his community charge reduction scheme.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): The community charge reduction scheme will take hundreds of pounds off the bills of many people whose rates were low. The couple in my hon. Friend's constituency would have had a rates bill near the national average, but even so might expect a reduction of about £64 between them.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that Conservative-controlled Dacorum borough council has reduced its community charge by £33 per head and that one reason for that is that 98 per cent. of those registered have paid? Is he aware the council has gone about running the borough in an extremely efficient way, to the great advantage of those who live there? Does not that contrast with the nearby Labour-controlled council of Watford, which has a community charge of almost £100 more, with a cost of collection of £19 per head, compared with £7 per head in Dacorum? In those circumstances, will my hon. Friend advise the people of Watford and other areas of Hertfordshire to do what three opposition councillors in my area did last year and join the Conservative party?
    Mr. Portillo: I endorse my hon. Friend's advice. It is remarkable that the community charge in Dacorum has been reduced by 8 per cent. Even so, it is remarkable that the community charge reduction scheme would give a couple in my hon. Friend's constituency a reduction of £133 if they were on three quarters of the average rateable value. Watford has no excuse in looking to the county, because Hertfordshire, which is under Conservative control, is spending £16 below the standard spending assessment, so the entire burden and more must be the responsibility of Watford.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that no amount of tinkering with the poll tax in Dacorum or anywhere else will make it acceptable? Can we expect the Secretary of State to make a better job of finding a method of financing local government than he did in 1972 on local government reorganisation when in charge of the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill, the disastrous results of which we are still trying to deal with 18 years later?
    Mr. Portillo: From the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I thought that his sense of geography was not strong. From the second part, I thought that his sense of history was not strong.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the community charge levels for London boroughs in 1991; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: Westminster city council has set an example by planning a charge of £176. However, it seems already that some councils are planning charges of over £400: Hounslow, Merton, Hackney, Camden and Islington.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Ealing's Conservative council on reducing the former Labour council community charge by £40 to under £400, despite 10 per cent. inflation? Does he accept my implacable opposition to council rent increases of £10 a week from 1 January and of £17·87 a week from 1 April? I express my implacable opposition even though the previous Labour council was entirely to blame. Can my hon. Friend find a way of helping the council?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend draws attention to the extraordinary achievement of Ealing in bringing down the community charge, given the horrific legacy to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning referred a moment ago. What the council has managed to

    969
    do on the community charge is remarkable. I regret that rents have had to go up so much, but there is no doubt where the responsibility lies. The Government have been as co-operative with Ealing in its difficult position as they can be, but in the end the sins of the old Labour administration will be visited on the people of Ealing.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that in Lambeth we face appallingly savage cuts as a result of the Government's insisting on the writing off of about £40 million of debt? Why cannot we do what any business would do and write off that debt without treating it on the one hand as money that has to be added to the poll tax or, on the other, as expenditure to be deducted from capped expenditure? Why cannot we tackle it sensibly as a business would?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman seeks to compare Lambeth with a business. I am afraid that I find that comparison far-fetched.

    Planning
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the remarks by the Minister for housing on the potential beneficial impact of a well-designed new town or village on the landscape.
    Mr. Heseltine: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to a recent speech by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to a conference on "Tomorrow's New Communities". I have had no direct representations on his remarks.
    Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend is right; I am referring to that brave speech by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. Everybody is in favour of the green belt; it is a valuable asset. But if we are never to build beyond the green belt in countryside which is accessible, valuable or beautiful, all building will have to take place within towns. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of people live in towns and that they, too, want to be able to see trees and to have somewhere to let the dog run and for their children to play?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am most interested in what my hon. Friend said. He will know that we issued a consultation paper on the subject. We shall be giving our definitive views on the matter shortly and I shall take into account what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Turner: Is the Secretary of State aware of the devastating effect on the landscape and estates close to limestone workings? It is not always a happy story. In my constituency families are suffering seriously as a result of old limestone workings and they have turned to the Government for support. However, we have not yet heard anything positive from the Government and it would be welcome if the Secretary of State could tell the people of Ettingshall Park Farm in my constituency that some relief will be offered to them soon.
    Mr. Heseltine: Had I been able to anticipate the hon. Gentleman's question I should have answered it today instead of tomorrow.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest percentage figures of the number of community charge payers who have made payments for the recent year in (a) Langbaurgh, (b) Middlesbrough, (c) Hartlepool, (d) Stockton and (e) North Tyneside; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: Payments had been made by 31 December 1990 by 88 per cent. of charge payers in Langbaurgh; 89 per cent. in Middlesbrough; 86 per cent. in Hartlepool; 83 per cent. in Stockton; and 94 per cent. in North Tyneside. In most areas the proportion is now nine out of 10, which is very encouraging. However, Iangbaurgh collected only 51 per cent. of its budgeted yield in the first nine months of the year, compared with 84 per cent. in North Tyneside.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but not very, as it shows how inefficient Langbaurgh council is. It has been able to collect only 51 per cent. of the yield that it should have collected by now. Is there anything that my hon. Friend's Department can do to appoint an inspector or someone else with competence to Langbaurgh council to sort out the inefficiency which has meant that many people have yet to receive their community charge bills, let alone pay them?
    Mr. Key: As my hon. Friend says, there is a wide variation in the efficiency of local authorities' collection. Many local authorities have not used the collection powers available to them.

    Environment White Paper
    Mr. Caborn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on implementing the proposals set out in the White Paper on the environment.
    Mr. Heseltine: The Government continue to make very good progress in implementing their White Paper strategy.
    Mr. Caborn: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but does he agree that the implementation of many of the recommendations in the White Paper could proceed faster if resources were made available to local authorities to carry them out? On 1 April the new controls on air emissions will come into effect and 25 of those controls will be the responsibility of local authorities, but two authorities, Northampton and Langbaurgh, have already dismantled their control units. That is a bad omen for the implementation of many of the other White Paper proposals. Those authorities have abandoned control units because of a lack of financial resources.
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not believe that any local authority will forgo its statutory responsibilities. I sincerely believe that our proposals for integrated pollution control and the inspectorate that will back that up will have a profound and desirable effect.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although I welcome many of the proposals in the Water Act 1989, which gives the National Rivers Authority far greater powers, I urge my right hon. Friend to make far greater use of the "polluter pays" principle so that the pricing policy of companies takes into

    971
    account their responsibility towards the environment—a responsibility which will be met through their own financial incentives.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The "polluter pays" principle is widely accepted in environmental policies, but my hon. Friend will be aware that, following the privatisation of the water industry, a £28 billion investment programme has been established which will transform the quality of water in this country.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that his and the Government's credibility on environmental issues will he regarded as sound only when there is full integration between Government economic policy and Government environmental policy? The White Paper promised only that the Government would consider fuel taxation to encourage fuel economy and would consider environmental economic mechanisms to discourage pollution. Will the Tories join the Liberal Democrats in proposing a competitive tax on all forms of environmental pollution in this Budget, the next Budget, some time or never?
    Mr. Heseltine: We are not too keen to join the Liberal Democrats, because we aim to stay in government. As the hon. Gentleman must be fully aware, the Government have already set up a standing environment Cabinet committee. We have nominated Ministers from each Government Department to take an interest in such matters. Although the specific questions posed by the hon. Gentleman are a matter for the Chancellor, no one could question the Government's environmental credentials, which are world pace-setting.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the progress on the investment programme for the water industry which is specifically mentioned in the Government's White Paper? Is he satisfied with the progress of that investment programme, given that the industry acknowledges that there has been serious slippage in meeting those targets? Is not that slippage totally unacceptable when water bills have reached record levels and senior management in the water industry have just taken salary increases of up to 30 per cent?
    Mr. Heseltine: I keep in close contact with Lord Crickhowell of the National Rivers Authority. We are broadly satisfied with the pace of progress. However, the scheme is a major enhancement in expenditure programmes which is, in significant part, necessary because of the dramatic cuts introduced by the Labour Government in the mid-1970s. It is unrealistic not to understand that to get such a level of expenditure under way takes a significant amount of time if the task of investment is to be done well. I shall be frank in response to the hon. Lady's question—yes, there is a price for high environmental standards. If the hon. Lady and the Labour party think that we can improve standards without spending and investing money, they deceive the country and themselves.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest developments in connection with his review programme for the reconstruction of the community charge system.
    Mr. Heseltine: The review is continuing to look at a range of possibilities for local government finance, structure and functions. As part of the process, I have recently held a meeting with the local authority associations and visited a number of individual authorities and I and my ministerial colleagues have met various of the Opposition parties to hear their views.
    Mr. Dykes: Why have all the best ideas come from Conservative-controlled local authorities and either no ideas or the worst ideas have come from Labour-controlled local authorities?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has been in the House for long enough to know that that is a normal event which we are used to. In fairness to the Liberal party, the Welsh nationalists and the Scottish nationalists, they have clearly thought through their proposals for local government finance and have discussed the subject with us; we have had frank, full and valuable conversations. The gap has arisen characteristically, among Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, who apparently have proposals but have so little confidence in them that they are not prepared to discuss them.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What significance does the Secretary of State attach to the idea that all taxation should relate to ability to pay? Have the Government yet ruled in the possibility of local income tax, which could certainly be implemented in Scotland in the next financial year?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have made it clear that we are looking comprehensively at all options. Although much of the argumentation behind the options is familiar and I fully appreciate the position of the Scottish National party, I shall not go further today than to say that all the options have been or are being considered by the Government, who have ruled nothing out.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: In view of the commitment made by my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister that nothing will be ruled out when considering changes to, or the repeal of, the community charge, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still practical and possible to repeal the community charge and replace it with 7 per cent. VAT before 1 April 1991, thus saving us from another 12 months of agony?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have made it clear that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. With regard to the timing that my hon. Friend suggests, some things are ruled a bit more in than others.
    Mr. Nellist: Will the review consider the powers of poll tax officers, such as is illustrated by the case of a 58-year-old lady to whom I spoke in Coventry last night? She has always paid her 20 per cent. poll tax by direct debit from a bank. After two lots of open-heart surgery, she moved last December from income support to invalidity benefit and received a £3 a week rise to £55 a week. She found that the poll tax office in Coventry had the power to phone the Midland bank and instruct it to pay £98 to the poll tax office out of her meagre savings. That is the first time that I have heard of poll tax officers having the power to instruct clearing banks to make such payments. Will the Secretary of State's review rule out such powers?
    Mr. Heseltine: I cannot respond in the House to the circumstances of individual cases put by the hon. Gentleman, because I cannot reply in the detail that he expects. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me, I shall carefully consider the principles involved. The hon. Gentleman does everything that he can to avoid paying the community charge. What sort of example does that set for people whom he expects to pay it?
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend take my word for it that people in my constituency, which is yoked to two of the worst Labour councils in the south-east, Basildon and Thurrock, are sceptical about a change in the method of collection? They think that whatever we do under the same council structure the amount will still be too high. My constituents want the review to have an opportunity to reduce the role of local councils and put more work out to tender so that we do not need to collect as much money.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. I strongly support her view that the more choice and competition we can introduce to the provision of services, the better value for money we are likely to get.
    Mr. Blunkett: I notice that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) questions the Secretary of State on the reconstruction, not the removal of the poll tax. The Secretary of State is now engaged in deliberations. Does he agree with the Audit Commission that people on nil or very low income should be exempted from paying, because of the cost of collection and the unfairness, or with his colleague the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who earlier this month said:
    "Labour is in great peril if it gives up the principle that everybody should make a contribution to the cost of local government, because that principle is widely accepted."—[Official Report, 19 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 198.]
    The two things are contradictory. If the Secretary of State is intent on introducing a floor tax, does not he accept that the only way to fulfil the wishes of the Minister of State is to maintain both a floor tax and the poll tax?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that my hon. Friend the Minister of State makes a vital contribution to the review, as does the Audit Commission.

    Litter
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the regulations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 relating to litter came into force.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): The provisions about the fixed penalty scheme and the increase in the maximum fine for littering from £400 to £1,000 came into force on 13 February. The new duty to ensure that land is kept clear of litter and refuse will come into effect on 1 April 1991. I will be placing a full detailed timetable in the Library.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Should not the Government set a good example? Will he consider removing Crown immunity?
    Mr. Trippier: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we have decided to remove Crown immunity, which means that every Government Department will have to comply
    974
    with the litter provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I trust that all Departments will therefore set an excellent example to the rest of the nation.
    Mr. Eastham: It is about time that we gave the confectionery industry some guidelines about packaging. Often sweets are covered by two or three pieces of paper which increases unnecessarily the amount of litter that has to be collected. The problem could be greatly reduced.
    Mr. Trippier: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Within the Department we have already set up a working party to deal with waste minimisation, which is precisely the point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House. Last week I had an opportunity to visit Germany and was very interested in the waste minimisation proposals that are being introduced by the federal Government there. Those proposals will cover the packaging problem. It will be interesting to see how the Germans implement their legislation and I shall be fascinated to see whether it can be replicated here.

    Housing
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation to discuss the aspirations of non-metropolitan district councils in respect of their responsibilities towards housing.
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has regular meetings with the chairman of the Housing Corporation, with whom he discusses a wide range of housing issues.
    Mr. Shepherd: When my hon. Friend discusses these matters with the chairman of the Housing Corporation will he place great emphasis on the distribution of the resources of the corporation between metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts? Is he aware, for example, that in the west midlands region in 1989–90 more than 90 per cent. of the corporation's resources went into the west midlands county—say, Staffordshire—leaving the vast area of Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Shropshire bereft of resources? Some district councils are going out of their minds in their efforts to discharge their responsibility to provide housing. Housing associations are lined up and ground is lined up, but the resources are not available.
    Mr. Yeo: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. From 1992–93, we shall require the Housing Corporation to meet fully the requirements of the housing needs indicator. I hope that this will be helpful to the local authorities to which my hon. Friend refers. Although, in the current year, the corporation has fallen some way short of its target for new housing in rural areas, it assures me that it will make up the shortfall over the next three years. Against the background of a near-doubling of the resources that we are devoting to the corporation, there will be a substantial increase in the number of new units being provided in rural areas—more than 6,500 over the next three years. In addition, we have given local authorities the chance, in the next financial year, to bid for another £50 million of credit approvals—again, specifically earmarked for low-cost housing in rural areas. The

    975
    Government give substantial support to the Rural Housing Trust, whose objective is to extend the coverage of the housing association movement in rural areas.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister understand that if there is a ceasefire in the Gulf—and there should be—and if the squaddies come home, they will fight against homelessness, against cardboard city, against the poll tax and against the ravages of Toryism? That is what frightens the Government. The war should be stopped, so that our people may come home and join us in the general struggle against injustice.
    Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, although they fall rather wide of the responsibilities of my Department. I assure the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I, together with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, will make certain that the right kind of accommodation is available for everyone who returns from the Gulf.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from the general public on the issue of the community charge in 1991.
    Mr. Portillo: About 9,000.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that much of the criticism of the poll tax, or community charge, would be better directed at overspending and wasteful councils? Before he makes up his mind about this great reform, will he come to Southend-on-Sea, where, just over a year ago, the Liberal-Labour council imposed a poll tax of £420, causing great hardship to the poor? Then the Conservatives took over, and the poll tax was reduced on two occasions—standing now at £340. If the Minister were to come to Southend, he would realise that most of the complaints about the terrible hardship that is being caused should be directed at councils that waste money irresponsibly, not at the principle itself.
    Mr. Portillo: I am tempted by my hon. Friend's invitation to visit Southend. I had the privilege of meeting his local authority not long ago. I was astounded that, having cut the community charge last year, the local
    976
    authority had been able to do it again, making it two years in a row. That shows that it was no fluke. The local authority is dedicated to reducing the overspending of the previous Labour-Liberal council. I pay tribute to it and to my hon. Friend for keeping up the pressure.

    Rented Housing
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase the availability of low-cost rented accommodation; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir George Young: The Government have taken a variety of measures to increase the supply of low-cost rented housing. Public resources through the Housing Corporation for the development of new housing by housing associations will increase from £1·2 billion this year to over £2 billion by 1993–94. Together with associations' new ability to draw in private investment, that will permit an increase in output from 21,000 last year to about 40,000 by 1993–94. Deregulation of the private rented sector, the business expansion scheme, the exceptions planning policy for low-cost housing in rural areas and the estate action programme are also helping to make more properties available for rent.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Notwithstanding the increase in housing association and Housing Corporation cash that the Minister has just announced, does he accept that funding does not begin to match the demand and need identified by the Housing Corporation and the housing associations for long-term provision of housing? Will he think again about the possibility of increasing that budget?
    Provided that the standards of provision are adequate, will the Minister consider making it easier to give financial incentives to those who have spare rooms to make them available and so bring people off the streets as a transitional stage towards the provision of longer-term accommodation?
    Sir George Young: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, which is also constantly pressed on me by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—the concept of the friendly landlady. However, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it involves tax incentives. Of course, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is brought to his attention.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that, when we reached Question No. 10, which referred to Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Stockton and North Tyneside, the reason that you were unable to call me to make a point about the extremely high-spending Labour councils was because no Labour Members——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot give an explanation of my discretion in these matters.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would sit down for a minute. I can give no bonus points for the sort of behaviour in which he constantly indulges, but I shall hear him now.
Mr. Banks: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I wish to apologise to you for my outrageous behaviour in challenging your partiality in calling the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) on a question about homelessness in Greater London. As you know and I know, the hon. Gentleman is the chair of the London group of Conservative Members of Parliament——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As a matter of fact, I did not know that. However, I do know that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) represents a Greater London seat.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I think that I was on my feet before the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be so, but I have discretion in these matters.
Mr. Dykes: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. Despite all your long years of distinguished service in the Speaker's Chair, were you not deeply shocked by the hysterical display of petulant anger when you called my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey)——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am frequently deeply shocked but I try not to show it.
Mr. Derek Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—I thought that you might like a genuine one for a change. We have discussed before the closure of the side galleries following the demonstration by those opposed to the Gulf war. Now that feeling about the British position in the Gulf is perhaps less emotive among those opposed to it, will you reconsider the decision to close the galleries? That is especially important before Budget day, when there is so much pressure for seating. The officials in the Admission Order Office are helpful to hon. Members, but their hands are tied until the ruling is rescinded.
Mr. Speaker: That matter is constantly under review. The House would expect me to take action to protect hon. Members, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a completely different and important point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has just been announced on Baghdad radio that Iraq is willing to abandon all claims to Kuwait, to discuss reparations and to release all prisoners of war as soon as a ceasefire is arranged. I realise that that is a preliminary announcement, and we are always dubious about what is said, but if that information proves valid, we might want a statement at 7 o'clock or later this evening. Can that be conveyed to the appropriate Minister?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having brought that welcome piece of news. I hope that it turns out to be true. I am sure that what he has said will have been heard by those on the Front Bench.

Points of Order

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 15 MARCH
  Members successful in the ballot were:
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: For debate on Friday 15 March, I have selected the subject of the ecological consequences of the Gulf war and the actions that are being taken by Her Majesty's Government and members of the coalition to cope with oil slicks, Gulf oil fires, dysentery, typhoid and other related problems in Iraq, and with casualties on both sides. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the old procedure. The hon. Gentleman is empowered to say that.

  Mr. Lewis Stevens

  Mr. Gerald Howarth

  BILLS PRESENTED
    AGE OF LEGAL CAPACITY (SCOTLAND)
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, supported by Sir David Steel, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Bill Walker and Mr. Brian Wilson, presented a Bill to make provision in the law of Scotland as to the legal capacity of persons under the age of 18 years to enter into transactions, as to the setting aside and ratification by the court of transactions entered into by such persons and as to guardians of persons under the age of 16 years; to make provision in the law of Scotland relating to the time and date at which a person shall be taken to attain a particular age; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
    HARE COURSING
    Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Peter Griffiths, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Andrew Welsh, presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

  Zoo Animal Welfare
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the welfare of zoo animals.
  I should say at the outset that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with working conditions in the Palace of Westminster.
  The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 was a major and welcome step forward which has had a significant beneficial impact. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), as well as to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who played an important role in promoting and improving the Bill.
  British zoos are not particularly bad by international standards. Anyone who has visited zoos in developing countries will no doubt have seen harrowing scenes of animals in cramped unnatural conditions. I well remember not long ago going to a zoo in China and seeing a lioness in a dark, damp, concrete cell 6 ft by 12 ft being taunted by people throwing cigarette ends at her. In the same zoo I saw a lone panda, supposedly China's national animal, in a completely unsuitable concrete pen without a companion and with no greenery whatever.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: No bamboo shoots?
  Mr. Oppenheim: Not one.
  By contrast, good British zoos and safari parks make a genuine effort to look after their animals properly. Glasgow zoo is a good example of one that is attempting to take account of the animals' natural habits and instincts and to keep them occupied and stimulated, and I welcome those efforts.
  Despite certain improvements as a result of the 1981 Act, major problems remain. They have been highlighted by an admirable organisation named Zoo Check, and by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' 1988 report, which was based on a large survey of British zoos. The problems they revealed relate not only to obvious shortcomings such as inadequate and cramped accommodation. Astonishingly, the RSPCA survey showed that only two zoos were required by their licence to ensure suitable social groupings of the animals that they kept. The RSPCA reported several instances of single representatives of highly social species, which is a very cruel practice.
  Many zoos had failed to undertake the improvements required by their licences within the specified period, which shows the serious shortcomings of existing legislation. I will highlight one or two of them. Currently, most inspectors come from within the zoo industry, which is not always a good idea. Also, inspections are made only every four or six years, and they should be made annually. Mandatory standards should be established and enforced by law, and the implementation of inspectors' recommendations should also be mandatory in the granting of licences. Too often in the past, local authorities have ignored recommendations when granting licences.
  My final point relates to the role of local authorities as licensing bodies. That is an unsatisfactory arrangement in many respects, because of the conflict of interests. Many local authorities own zoos, or lease land property to zoos—and often they are keen to keep open zoos as a local
  980
  attraction, rather than to prioritise the welfare of the animals that the zoos contain. Consequently, they are frequently unwilling to take action where animals are kept in unsuitable conditions.
  The Bill's main aim is to encourage amendments to the existing law, but I hope that, in the longer term, more thought will be given to the whole question of zoos. They were originally established to allow research, but that is no longer their prime purpose. Zoological research is often more satisfactorily undertaken in the field. Subsequently, zoos were considered primarily as places of entertainment and perhaps of education.
  However, the superb wildlife programmes that are now shown on television make it no longer necessary or desirable to keep animals cooped up in cages just to entertain or educate. One must question the educational value to children of seeing animals cooped up in cages in an artificial environment, in conditions that cause them extreme stress. If we are to use animals for our entertainment, it is incumbent upon us to keep them in humane conditions.
  In this day and age, the only real justification for zoos is as centres for the conservation of endangered species. I hope that the Government will consider that argument in relation to London zoo in particular. It has already received large sums of Government money, and is actively lobbying for even more. Such grants should be made conditional on major improvements, with the aim of turning zoos into centres for conservation, which could educate the public about the problems that lead to certain species being endangered. I hope that zoos in this country and throughout the world will develop in that way in future. If they do, they will carve out for themselves a valuable role in conservation and education.
  Animals are not machines, but sensitive beings capable of feeling unhappiness. Man is the most powerful species on earth, and we have a duty of care towards weaker animals. If we are to keep animals in zoos, and if we consider ourselves to be a civilised society, that must be done in a way that respects the animals' psychology. I commend the Bill to the House.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to oppose the Bill?
  Mr. Dalyell: Yes. I do not think that the ten-minute Bill procedure is the right way to go about this. I also take exception to a number of the implications in the speech that we have just heard.
  For instance, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) referred to Glasgow zoo. Whatever may have been the case many years ago, Graham Law and others have made enormous advances——
  Mr. Oppenheim: I said that.
  Mr. Dalyell: The general implication was that there was considerable dissatisfaction. I listened to what the hon. Gentleman was saying. The truth is—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has the right to oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: The truth is that many zoos are trying to make great progress. The hon. Gentleman did not name

  981
  any that were not. I give the example of Glasgow, which the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned. Many years ago, the bears had only 0·4 hectares of space, and kept strutting up and down. Now, they have 3 hectares. A whole series of challenges has been made for bears at that zoo; it is not true to say that the conditions are cramped. Most zoo owners are very enlightened, and are doing their best to improve matters.
  Secondly, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the local authorities. Thirdly, and more important, he attacked the keeping of animals for research purposes. Contrary to his implication, the captive breeding programmes are very important. I pay tribute to those—for instance, Roger Wheater in Edinburgh—who have pioneered the system. We need not legislation but resources if we are to return to the desired system of proper landscaping: the Hagenback system.
  Fourthly, if parliamentary progress is to be made, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman persuade some of the Ministers to devote more resources, to, for example, the natural parks system set up by the Scottish Natural Heritage Bill, which some of us are discussing in Committee every Tuesday and Thursday. That is the way to conduct research, and to implement what Markowitz and others have achieved in the field of animal psychology.
  If the resources are there, the House should be discussing a number of other matters. We should currently be considering how to save many of the birds and animals that risk extinction because of what has happened in the Gulf—for example, the green turtle, the hawksback turtle and the Socotra cormorant—as well as the coral ecosystems. That is where the resources should go.
  982
  Finally, I oppose the Bill on the ground of what the hon. Gentleman said about inspections. If he is to talk of annual inspections, a representative of the Government had better say what resources will be devoted to the appointment of more inspectors, who will be capable of coping with the problems.
  Perhaps my deepest objection is that we need not the hon. Gentleman's Bill, but legislation on the importation of birds for the bird trade, which reeks of a cruelty beyond anything in our zoos.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That is true.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and others, who know a great deal about the subject. I am not a universal expert, but I know rather a lot about zoos. I took some soundings, because I did not know what the hon. Member for Amber Valley was going to say; on the basis of what he has said, especially by implication, I for one oppose his Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Andrew Mackay, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Lewis Stevens, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Cecil Franks, Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. David Evennett.

  Zoo Animal Welfare
    ZOO ANIMAL WELFARE
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for the welfare of zoo animals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

  Social Security
  3.52 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House for us also to consider the following motions:
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.
  That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.
  That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: Will that be for the convenience of the House?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Newton: It is just possible that hon. Members may also agree that the main interest of the House and perhaps the main focus of the debate will be on the draft rating order.
  However, in line with my duties to the House, I must first refer to the purpose and content of the other orders and regulations, although I do not propose to refer to the order concerned with state scheme premiums which is entirely technical, not to say dense. However, I am prepared to say something about that order if pressed.
  The draft contributions re-rating order is, as always, concerned with national insurance contributions which determine people's entitlement to pensions and other important contributory benefits and which are the source of finance for more than half of what is spent each year on social security. A notable feature of the draft re-rating order is that, for the eighth year in succession, we propose no increase in the main rates—the class I rates paid by employed people and their employers.
  As the House will already be aware, this time I have been able to propose a reduction in the rates of national insurance contributions payable by employers. I propose to reduce the standard rate from 10·45 per cent. to 10·4 per cent. and, perhaps more important, to reduce the lower rates, which are currently 5 per cent., 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. in respect of employees earning up to £175 a week, to 4·6 per cent., 6·6 per cent. and 8·6 per cent. respectively. Those changes will reduce employers' costs by about £250 million. I remind the House that they are likely to be especially helpful to employers—often smaller employers—whose employees are among the less highly paid, and will go a considerable way towards offsetting any
  984
  additional costs that employers meet as a result of changes to statutory sick pay made by the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991.
  The House will be aware also that there are boundaries for contribution liability, called the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit, and they will change as usual. The LEL applies to employers' and employees' share of contributions, but the UEL applies to the employees' share only. The order does not set those two earnings limits; that is done by a set of regulations to be laid after the benefits uprating order has been approved. However, the LEL, which is linked by law to the nearest pound below the retirement pension rate, will be £52 a week, and the UEL will be £390 a week.
  The effect of the increase in the lower earnings limit will be to reduce most employees' contributions by 42p a week, or by 30p if they are in contracted-out employment. The effect of raising the upper earnings limit is that those having earnings of £390 or more a week will pay an extra £3·18 a week or £2·50 if they are contracted out.
  A few minutes ago, I mentioned the proposed reductions in the rates of contributions paid by employers. Additionally, as on previous occasions, the re-rating order provides that the earnings limit below which they pay lower contribution rates will be increased. From April, employers' contributions will be 4·6 per cent. in respect of employees earning between the lower earnings limit and £84·99, 6·6 per cent. for those earning between £85 and £129·99, 8·6 per cent. for those earning between £130 and £184·99, and 10·4 per cent. for those earning more than £185 a week.
  In 1991–92, class 1 contributions, which are the ordinary contributions that most people make, are expected to yield more than £35 billion. As is the case with contributions made in all classes, that revenue will be apportioned between the national insurance fund and the national health service.
  I shall now say a word about self-employed people, who pay national insurance contributions in two portions—the flat-rate class 2 contribution and the profits-related class 4 contribution. We do not propose any change to the class 4 rate, which will remain at 6·3 per cent. in the coming year. The profits limits for class 4 contributions, which determine the level of annual profits on which contributions are payable, will once again be increased to £5,900 and £20,280 respectively. The upper profits limit is exactly 52 times the class 1 upper earnings limit.
  We propose also to increase the class 2 contribution by 60p, to £5·15, per week from next April. That class 2 rate is broadly linked to the class I lower earnings rate, and its increase reflects the proposed rise in that limit. The result of all that is that self-employed people with profits at or below the present upper limit of £18·200 will pay about £28·35 less in class 4 contributions per year, and that will largely offset the increase of £31·20 in their class 2 contributions. Those with higher profits will pay up to £102·69 more in class 4 contributions. Self-employed people are expected to contribute nearly £1·4 billion overall in contributions in 1991–92.
  Certain categories of people—for example, those who are not gainfully employed or who are receiving contributions credits, such as people who retired before the age of 60—can pay class 3 contributions if they wish. They are voluntary contributions. We propose to increase class 3 contributions by 60p, making them £5·05 per week.

  985
  As usual, the Government Actuary's report on the effect of our proposals on the national insurance fund has been laid with the re-rating and uprating orders. It is estimated that the total income received by the national insurance fund will be around £33·5 billion in 1991–92. Total expenditure, including administration, is estimated at £34·5 billion. However, although expenditure is likely to exceed income, the balance is expected to remain comfortably above the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary.
  The changes in national insurance that I have just described will determine the contributions of the vast majority of people, but I should like to say a word about one interesting corner of the system which is of particular interest, although to only a limited number of hon. Members—the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1991, which deal with the special rate of class 2 contribution that is paid by share fishermen. I notice that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is pricking up his ears. He is one of the hon. Members whom I had in mind. I refer to the 13,000 people who are jointly engaged in a fishing enterprise and who are paid wholly or in part by a share of the profits from the catch. Unless they are working under a contract of service, they are regarded as self-employed for national insurance purposes.
  Unlike self-employed people generally, however, under a long-standing arrangement, share fishermen can receive unemployment benefit and industrial injuries benefits. They earn their entitlement to these benefits by paying a special, enhanced class 2 contribution. This consists of the standard class 2 contribution paid by the majority of self-employed people, with an additional amount related to the costs of the extra benefits payable to them.
  Hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—will recall that one of the measures contained in the Social Security Act 1990 was the removal from the scope of the national insurance fund of industrial injuries benefits, which are now met from general taxation. Clearly, therefore, it is inappropriate for share fishermen to pay extra in contributions for benefits that are no longer funded from these contributions. From April, we propose that share fishermen should no longer pay this extra amount, although I hasten to reassure the House that this change will have no effect on their rights to benefits.
  To make the position clear in financial terms, I should explain that, with additions for both unemployment benefit and industrial injuries benefits, the share fishermen's contribution currently stands at £6·15. By removing the addition for industrial injuries benefits, but adding the normal increase in the standard class 2 contribution, which this year is 60p, the share fishermen's contribution rate from April will be £6·20. This means that, for a very modest increase of 5p a week on their contributions, share fishermen will continue to receive their extra benefits in the same way as before, as well as benefiting from the coverage given by standard class 2 contributions. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire might pop up to say what good news that is and what a generous Government we are.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Hope springs eternal. Although this welcome rationalisation reconciles the longer-term problems faced by share fishermen, they also face more urgent short-term problems, such as the eight-day tie-up period during which they are excluded from unemployment benefit. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at that as a matter of some urgency, to try to bring about some short-term relief in the coming year?
  Mr. Newton: From long experience in the House, perhaps I should have known that it is impossible to do good work without somebody seeking to get one to do more. I shall, of course, look at the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I hope that he will understand me when I say that I shall do so without commitment. That matter has the air of a point that somebody has looked at fairly closely several times previously——
  Mr. Kirkwood: To no useful effect.
  Mr. Newton: As I have said, I can make no commitment—only an expression of good will in the hon. Gentleman's direction.
  I turn with some relief, which I suspect is shared by the House, from the rather tedious details of national insurance to the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order, which represents changes that are part of a wider package of shorty-term sickness provisions for those in employment, other elements of which are contained in what is now the Statutory Sick Pay Act. As the ground was well, not to say exhaustively, trodden during the debates on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill both in this House and in another place, I shall not take the time of the House this afternoon by going over it again in great detail. I simply state briefly and factually that the order increases the lower rate of SSP by the full retail prices index increase of 10·9 per cent. from £39·25 to £43·50 a week and leaves the higher rate unchanged at £52·50 a week.
  At the same time, the earnings threshold between the two rates will increase from £125 to £185 per week, thus extending the coverage of the lower rate across the whole range of earnings for which employers pay lower rates of national insurance contributions. Those proposals will reduce public expenditure on SSP by about £100 million in 1991–92. [Interruption.] In view of the faint sounds of muttering from Oldham, I should like to remind the House once more that the majority of employees will see no effect on the total payments that they receive when sick. That is because of the way in which occupational sick pay under employers' schemes interacts with SSP.
  To pre-empt one of the points which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will undoubtedly make, not all employees are covered by such schemes, either because they are among the 9 per cent. of employees who work for an employer who does not have an occupational sick pay scheme or because they do not satisfy the qualifying conditions of their employer's scheme. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that those who do not satisfy the qualifying conditions, and possibly a significant proportion of the others, will be mainly employees who are modestly paid or who work part-time and will generally be on the lower rate of statutory sick pay. Their entitlement once again will be fully protected in real terms by the increase that is proposed in the order.
  Before I finish dealing with SSP, I should refer to the Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Regulations,

  987
  which are also in the package before the House. As hon. Members will realise, those regulations are in consequence of the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, passed earlier this month. The regulations enable small employers who experience abnormal sickness in their work force to revert to an SSP reimbursement rate of 100 per cent., instead of 80 per cent., after an employee has been sick for a spell of six weeks or more.
  I do not intend to go over the background to those provisions today, because they were the main focus of our recent debates on the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, but I can confirm that, as foreshadowed in that debate, the regulations provide for an employer to be defined as a small employer where his contribution payments in the preceding tax year do not exceed £15,000. Small employer's relief—that is, 100 per cent. recovery—will apply once an employee has been entitled to SSP for six weeks in a period of incapacity for work. The regulations also modify the provisions on the position of new employers.
  Before I move on, I want to say a few words about the proposals for statutory maternity pay. As I said in my uprating statement, the considerations which apply to statutory maternity pay are different from those which apply to statutory sick pay. In particular, there is much less occupational cover for maternity than for sickness. So we propose to move away from the link which currently exists between the flat-rate element of statutory maternity pay and statutory sick pay.
  Indeed, the main benefits uprating order increases the rate of statutory maternity pay by £25 a week to £44·50 per week, which is a full £1 above the retail prices index increase of 10·9 per cent. In other words, a real, additional £1 is being added. Indeed, a real, additional £1 is also being added to the state maternity allowance, which will go up by £4·90 to £40·60 a week. The effect of that is a real increase in benefit for some 315,000 mothers-to-be. That is a modest improvement but a useful and welcome one, which has been less noted than I should have wished.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State should have made it more generous.
  Mr. Newton: It is £5 million, if I remember rightly, so it is a significant sum, nevertheless.
  I will touch only briefly on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order, which is in line with my statutory duty under the Social Security Act 1986. It requires occupational pensions schemes which are contracted out of the state earnings related pension scheme to give post-award increases in guaranteed minimum pensions earned since the 1988–89 tax year of 3 per cent. from 6 April this year.
  On child benefit, as I made clear in my uprating statement and am happy to have another opportunity to make clear today, the benefit is and will remain a strong element of our policies for family support. As the House knows, I decided that the right course of action this year was to give practical recognition to the fact that all families with children face additional costs compared to families with none, by proposing an additional payment of child benefit of £1 a week for every family with children.
  That will be paid for the eldest eligible child in each family, and will go to around 7 million claimants, in most cases the mother. The net cost will be over £250 million a year. As the extra fl will go to every family and will indeed
  988
  be larger than a retail prices increase would have been in one-parent benefit—which is itself defined as an increase for the eldest eligible child—I decided that, on this occasion, it would not be right to make a separate increase in that benefit as well.
  The extra payment for all families with children complements the real terms increases in income-related benefits which we have introduced over the past three years to focus additional help on the less well-off families with children. Families on income support and family credit will also, of course, have their benefits increased From April to compensate them for price increases in the usual way. Taken together with the earlier real increases, it means that spending on income-related benefits for families with children is expected to be worth some £400 million more in real terms in 1991–92 than in 1987–88.
  The Draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations are the legislative means by which the extra £1 a week will be implemented. They provide for £1 extra per week to be paid for the only, elder, or eldest child for whom a family is receiving child benefit at any time. For the sake of equity, there are provisions to ensure that every family receives one extra amount of child benefit each week.
  Historically, there has always been a link between child benefit and other benefits for children. When child benefit for the first child in a family was increased from £1 to £2·30 in April 1978 by the previous Labour Government, there was a corresponding decrease of £1·30 in the rate of other benefits for that child. We therefore propose to make further regulations to be laid before Parliament in due course to ensure that the general principle, that benefit rates for children should be based on the overall level of child support, continues to apply. We propose that benefits payable under the Social Security Act 1975 in respect of children be adjusted where the child in question is one for whom the increased rate of child benefit is payable.
  The draft uprating order provides for an across the board increase from £9·65 to £10·70 in the dependant's additions to contributory benefits. The effect of the proposed overlapping benefit adjustment to which I have just referred will be to reduce the amount of such a benefit by £1 where the increased child benefit is in payment; £1 is, of course, the amount by which child benefit is increased.
  Mr. Graham Allen: I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in good health. If the worst came to the worst, and he were to fall under the proverbial bus, can he tell those in receipt of child benefit anything about the reports in The Independent on Sunday of serious splits in his ministerial team, of the think tank and of Mr. David Willetts coming up with other ideas? Can he reassure us that, if he were to leave his present position, child benefit would remain safe?
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps have taken the answer to his question as already having been given in my firm reiteration, made to the House and elsewhere on several occasions, that child benefit is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support. I made that statement on 24 October, as a statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government

  989
  collectively; it was not made off the cuff by the Secretary of State for Social Security. That seems to make the position absolutely clear.
  Mr. Frank Field: It is possible to accept that the Government now, thank goodness, have no intention of abandoning the child benefit scheme—they want to spend the money within that framework in a different way. Press reports sometimes suggest that a Tory party inquiry is being held, sometimes a departmental one, on the various options. Is it possible for the Secretary of State to tell us whether such inquiries are taking place in the Department, in the Tory party or in both?
  Mr. Newton: I do not believe that it is possible for me to answer the hon. Gentleman's question in the way in which it has been phrased, but it is certainly not true that all thinking has ceased on the Conservative Benches about possible further development of the benefit system—I presume that the same is true of the Opposition Benches. I am not able to predict the outcome of regular consideration of what is the right way in which to deal with social security matters.
  Mr. Field: I do not expect the Secretary of State to tell us the outcome of reviews, but I asked whether such reviews are taking place and where.
  Mr. Newton: In that case, the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that, such is the liveliness and vigour of all of us in the Conservative party—I was grateful to note the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) about my appearing to be in reasonable health—that we are constantly thinking about social security matters in all sorts of ways, at every level and in a variety of forums.
  Mr. Field: That is not a good answer.
  Mr. Newton: I think that it is a very good one, and I do not propose to try to come up with something better.
  The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1991 provides for an increase in retirement pensions, and in virtually all other benefits that are not income-related, of 10·9 per cent. That is the increase in prices that took place during the year ending September 1990. As for income-related benefits, the draft order provides for a general increase of 8·1 per cent., which is the increase in retail prices, other than housing costs, over the same period. That difference, as is now well understood, reflects the fact that, for people on income support, help with rent is separately available through housing benefit and help with mortgage interest separately within income support itself.
  Rather than rehearse all the many benefit rates to which the general increases give rise—they are set out in the order—it would be more helpful, especially in view of the relatively short time that the House has to consider the order, to concentrate on two ways in which its provisions improve on the general pattern that I have outlined.
  This year, we are proposing to spend an extra £80 million through a real increase in the basic pensioner premium that is paid to people on income support aged 60 to 74. That increase will directly benefit about 400,000 pensioners on income support and will feed through to housing benefit and community charge benefit. The
  990
  premiums for single pensioners in that age group will go up by an extra £1 a week, over and above a straightforward uprating, while couples will receive an extra £1·50 a week. That increase builds upon the improvements we made to the premium structure for other pensioner groups on income support in October 1989, which provided £200 million of extra assistance in its first year.
  Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Newton: I could almost have predicted an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Winnick: Perhaps that is true, as I want to refer to a report in The Independent today, which says that there were 2,347 more deaths, mainly among the elderly, than was expected during the cold spell. The charity Winter Action on Cold Homes puts a great deal of blame for those deaths on inadequate heating, fuel poverty and the like. Although I was pleased that two payments of £6 were made, far too many elderly people are simply financially incapable of keeping their homes warm, and that leads to a great deal of deprivation and, sadly, death. I hope that the Government will take more effective action than they have so far to deal with that problem.
  Mr. Newton: I have seen the report in The Independent this morning and the comments that go with it, but I cannot pretend to have had an opportunity in the intervening period to make a detailed analysis of the figures underlying it. I learned from my previous experience in the job now done by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, when there was discussion and controversy on the subject, that this country is not alone in experiencing the problem of higher mortality rates in winter than in summer. It is clear that the causes of that problem, which go well beyond this country, are by no means simple to identify or overcome. Those mortality rates include people who, by no stretch of the imagination, could be described as badly off and may be in comfortable and heated residential institutions. It is difficult to draw firm and clear conclusions from the statistics.
  I go along with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in acknowledging that a range of measures is required. I hope that the cold weather payments recently made will make a contribution. In addition, the Government recently introduced—it was contained in the Social Security Act 1989, although it is not strictly a social security measure—a home energy efficiency scheme, the latest version of a number of schemes designed to improve the way in which the houses of elderly people and others are insulated. The advisory services' "keep warm, keep well" campaign, run by Help the Aged, with Government support, can also make a contribution. There is certainly a problem, towards which a range of measures are directed. This Government, and any other Government, would acknowledge that we constantly need to find new ways to address it.
  I do not believe that the evidence suggests that the problem can be solved as simplistically as the hon. Member for Walsall, North suggests—by simply using more money on it. The hon. Gentleman intervened at a point in my speech when it was logical to make his remarks, but the paragraph at the end of which he

  991
  intervened made it clear that, during the past 18 months, we have directed additional regular, weekly support—worth almost £300 million—to the very groups about whom he is concerned.
  Another significant way in which the order varies from the overall retail price index or "Rossi" uprating pattern to which I referred, is the increase in the income support limits governing the amounts payable to those in residential care and nursing homes, by amounts ranging up to no less than £55 a week for a nursing home in Greater London—at an overall cost of £225 million. I should make it clear that, under a technicality, the £10 increase in the London nursing home supplement requires a separate set of regulations distinct from the uprating order under debate.
  As the House knows, the balance of the increased limits is weighted towards nursing homes. All the evidence, including the Price Waterhouse survey of costs that we commissioned, shows that that is where large increases are most needed.
  In view of some of the comments made, I should emphasise two points about the residential care home limits. First, the basic residential care home limit has increased faster than inflation during the past five years. Secondly—this is too often overlooked in such discussions—the structure includes a separate and higher limit for residential care homes for the very dependent elderly, whose care is obviously likely to entail higher costs. That limit, which covers well over a third of all elderly people on income support in residential homes, is being increased by £15 a week.
  I hope that it is in order to refer to a matter which is not about uprating but which is of considerable interest to many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) who has rightly pressed us on it. It is the lump sum made available to those who suffer severe neural or physical damage as a result of vaccination. Such payments are made under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and were last increased from £10,000 to £20,000 in 1985, when I held the post now occupied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.
  I am glad to tell the House that we have decided to increase the amount by a further £10,000 to £30,000, which rather more than restores its value to the 1985 level. The necessary order will be laid shortly. That increase does not represent a changed judgment about the risk of vaccination, but simply our view that it is once again appropriate to increase the payment. I hope that that will be welcome.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome my right hon. Friend's news about the increase. It will be especially welcomed by young people who, through no fault of their own or of their parents, have been damaged by vaccine. The increases are in response to representations that I and other hon. Members have made over the past year. I should like the Minister to look at the rules and regulations under which vaccine damage payments are made. Currently, an 80 per cent. disability has to be proved before any payment can be made. I have urged the Minister in the past to look at this matter, and I hope that he will do so. I thank him for his valuable contribution.
  Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I shall consider the issue that he raises but,
  992
  obviously, I cannot make any commitment at this stage. I pay tribute to him and to other hon. Members for the way in which this issue has been pressed. I am glad that we have been able to announce a response.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: While we all appreciate the increase, it seems to be just below the increase in earnings for the period and probably in line with inflation. How many vaccine-damaged children will benefit from the change?
  Mr. Newton: As with the previous change, this change will apply to new claims made after a certain date, in this case after 15 April. The reasons for doing it in that way were fully explained in 1985, but I can repeat them if hon. Members wish me to do so. Only about four or five vaccine damage awards are made each year. It is a small scheme, and I hope that it is clear to the House that I am not trying to oversell it. However, the matter has been sensibly and rightly raised, and we have responded to it in the same way.
  It is customary in such debates for the Secretary of State to conclude by reminding the House of the huge amounts with which we are dealing. The increase in social security expenditure between this year and next, most of it arising from the uprating order, is nearly £5 billion, and it will take the total next year to well over £60 billion. [Interruption.] I wish that Opposition Members would stop muttering.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Instead of trying to take credit for the fact that the budget has increased by £5 billion a year, the Secretary of State should eat a little humble pie by acknowledging that his economic colleagues have completely lost control of inflation, and that that, and that alone, is the cause of the increase.
  Mr. Newton: It is absolutely clear that inflation is falling at a very significant rate, and that is welcome to all of us. The hon. Gentleman might have spotted that, although I felt it, as it were, routinely necessary to refer to these macro-economic figures, I was about to move to a rather different way of bringing my speech to an end.
  It is possible to take those huge sums and present whatever arguments we may have as to their basis. I prefer to concentrate on what this is all about—the people we are helping. In raising the national insurance retirement pension by £5·10 for a single person, and by £8·15 a week for a couple, we are firmly maintaining our pledge to raise pensions in line with price rises. In providing a real increase in income support for many less well-off pensioners, we are building on what was done 18 months ago for those in this group who are disabled or who are over 75—taking the total of real additional help to nearly £300 million in less than two years.
  With the increase in child benefit, we are helping more than 6 million families, complementing the £400 million of real extra help already provided to families who are less well-off, compared with the position that obtained before the social security reforms of 1988. When all that is taken together with legislation that the House passed recently to bring an additional £300 million a year of help to many disabled people, it will be seen that we can take some pride in this order and in the Government's record.
  4.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: The annual debate on social security uprating is, in effect, a debate on the living standards and prospects of the poorest one third of the nation. On that subject, we have just had a rather modest speech from the Secretary of State. It was a speech full of minor details, but perhaps that is not surprising as, when it comes to protecting the living standards of our poorest citizens, he has a lot to be modest about. However, modesty is not a quality that comes naturally to the present Government. Last July, the then Prime Minister roundly declared:
  "all people of all incomes have increased their standard of living under this Government."—[Official Report, 24 July 1990; Vol. 177, c. 304.]
  Let the Secretary of State say that to the 100,000 claimant households that have not had a penny rise in their benefits since April 1987. Ironically, 24 hours before that declaration by the Prime Minister, the Government published statistics which, for the first time, publicly admitted the opposite.
  A Department of Social Security document bearing the sexy title, "Households below average income"—I suppose that only a Government Department could dream up such a title—for which we were grateful, despite its late publication, shows that, between 1979 and 1987, the average income, after housing costs, of the bottom one tenth of the population fell by 5·7 per cent. in real terms, and that the average income of the bottom one fifth of the population fell by 1·1 per cent. in real terms. The 10 million people affected are the subject of today's debate.
  Ministers like to say that they have concentrated help on the most needy. I am glad to see that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has woken up now that the Secretary of State has finished and I am speaking. On 30 January 1990, he said:
  "We have adjusted the system to concentrate help on the poorest elderly and disabled pensioners."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 211.]
  I wrote to the Secretary of State and asked for more details of the poorest 1 million people in this group—the most disadvantaged in our society. After four months, the Minister replied, confirming what we had always suspected—that under the present Government the 1 million in the population with the lowest incomes have suffered a fall in their real living standards of no less than 10 to 15 per cent.
  Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned comparative modesty between the two Front Benches. He will know that, since 1979, the Government have increased spending on family benefits by 29 per cent. in real terms. When the last Labour Government cut spending on family benefits by 8 per cent., where was the hon. Gentleman and what did he do?
  Mr. Meacher: I should certainly like to know where those statistics come from. The hon. Gentleman must know that, during their last term of office, the Government have cut child benefit by more than 25 per cent.
  Among the groups that I mentioned—they are the subject of today's debate—one group about which the Government like to claim they are concerned is precisely the group mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, families with children. Indeed, the Minister for Social Security and
  Disabled People said in his revealing speech a year ago:
  "We try to establish those parts of the social security system where the shoe pinches unduly and make adjustments
  994
  to it. We have helped families on low incomes, whether in or out of work."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 211.]
  On 26 July 1990, the Government published what has really been happening to families on low incomes. I mention that date only because, as hon. Members may remember, it was the day that Parliament rose for the recess. I am sure that my hon. Friends know that there is no more important Hansard to read than the one that is circulated after Parliament has closed for the recess. That is when all the unwelcome information that the Government have been trying to conceal for the past year finally sees the light of day. It is worth reading carefully. It shows that where the shoe pinches unduly—the poorest 10 per cent. of families on low incomes—have not been helped by the Government. According to the Government's figures, those people are 7 per cent. worse off in real terms compared with 1979. That is on the record, and I recommend that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) look at that Hansard.
  Mr. Newton: My first point is not my main point, but it needs to be made. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be referring to households on below average income and to the date of publication for certain figures. Those figures were not published on the day that Parliament rose for the recess. I remember that they were published when I was due to appear before the Select Committee on Social Security. We felt that it would be right, if possible, to publish those figures then so that the Select Committee could examine me on them. That must have been before Parliament rose for the summer recess.
  I wish to make a more substantive point about the way in which the hon. Gentleman is using the figures. He will acknowledge that he is referring to figures after housing costs, rather than to the total income available to the family. In reckoning their standard of living, most people look at their total income rather than their income after paying their rent or mortgage, although they may need to do that calculation for other purposes.
  By concentrating on the figures after housing costs, the hon. Gentleman runs the risk—I put it no higher than that because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to run that risk—of being seriously misleading. I shall give one simple example, which I also gave to the Select Committee last year. If a young couple save £50 a week to put towards a deposit on a house, that £50 will still be in their income after housing costs and they will probably be several deciles up in the tables to which the hon. Gentleman referred. When that couple stop saving £50 a week, but instead start paying £50 towards a mortgage, it becomes a housing cost and the couple drop a decile or two in the tables and are suddenly defined as poor. The only change is that they are putting £50 a week into a mortgage instead of saving £50 a week for a deposit. That shows how absurd some interpretations of statistics can be.
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct on a number of points. First, I was not quoting the "Households below average income" figures; I was quoting Hansard for the last day of the Session, which I think was 26 July, and which was circulated 10 days after. It is correct that the HBAI figures were issued two or three days before, but what the right hon. Gentleman does not add is that they had been sat on by the Government for at least a year. They had been promised the Christmas before, they had been promised in the new year and they

  995
  had been promised before Easter. We finally had them in the last week of the Session, when it was not impossible but extremely difficult to make use of them in the House.
  Whether taking incomes before or after housing costs is the fairest representation of the state of overall income is a genuine issue, but it is curious to hear the right hon. Gentleman make such a point on behalf of a Government, who have constantly said that we should ignore the cost of mortgages in the retail prices index—[Interruption]. That is exactly what the Government have repeatedly said. They say that the mortgage element should be put on one side and that we should look at incomes minus mortgage payments. I do not think that I need to take any lessons from the right hon. Gentleman about which is the correct way of representing the figures.
  Mr. Frank Field: Is not one of the difficulties that the Government face that they have been hoist on their own low income figures? When the figures after housing costs showed that the poorest were doing twice as well as everybody else, the Government wanted to use them, but when they were revised the Government came up with some rather good reasons why we should not use them. Should not all the data carry a Government health warning, since both sides of the Chamber use figures for political reasons rather than because they reflect what is happening to the poor?
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend, who was Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services at the time, makes a relevant point. The Government statistics at that time were said to show that the poorest 10th—I think that it was the lowest decile—had increased their standard of living twice as fast as the rest of the community. That seemed an incredible claim and the Select Committee and my hon. Friend rightly subjected the Government's statistics to independent assessment by, I think, the Institute of Fiscal Studies. It showed that the figures were bogus. Therefore, we should take into account my hon. Friend's point and the way in which the Government have moved the goal posts by presenting figures calculated on a different basis.
  The Government have only released figures for up to 1987. That is just as well for them because 1989 was a bad year, 1990 was a dreadful year and 1991 looks like being a disastrous year, not only for the nation, but above all for those on the lowest incomes. Since 1987, for them—it is mainly for them—unemployment has risen sharply and child benefit has been frozen. It can safely be said that if a quarter of the population were worse off in real terms after eight years of Tory government, as the Government have now admitted, they are even worse off now, after 12 years of Tory government.
  We may be told, although the right hon. Gentleman has not yet said so, that all that occurred under the previous regime—the ancien regime. The Conservative party is now the purveyor of the classless society. Frankly, I have never heard such cant. It was the Prime Minister who used that phrase and it was the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State who, five years ago, presided over the legislation that introduced the social fund; that virtually ended free school meals; that abolished entitlement to 90 per cent. of disablement benefit; that extended the penalty for so-called voluntary unemployment from six weeks to six months; that removed all entitlement to benefit for 16 to 17-year-olds which led directly to cardboard city; that
  996
  hacked £500 million off housing benefit for pensioners and other poor families, and which, according to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux caused 82 per cent. of social security claimants to be worse off.
  All those damaging changes were the direct result of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and they came into effect in 1988—the same year in which the Prime Minister, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer handed out £2 billion in tax reliefs to the well-heeled and the rich.
  I seem to remember that someone once said that people should be judged not by what they say but by what they do. Far from ushering in a classless society, the Prime Minister has handed down some of the most class-conscious and divisive legislation that Britain has suffered since the war. If the Prime Minister really believed in a classless society, he would not be making short-term gestures such as raising cold weather payments by £1 a week for a few elderly people for just two weeks. He would be restoring heating additions to all pensioners in need. He would be reversing the Tory's break of the pension uprating link with earnings, which has made pensioners a class apart—the only people who are denied the rise in living standards enjoyed by the rest of the community.
  If the Prime Minister really believed in a classless society, he would not merely be offering an additional £1 in child benefit for just this year for the eldest child only; he would be reversing the four-year Tory freeze on child benefit for all children. If the Prime Minister really believed in a classless society, he would not merely be talking about opportunity and fairness; he would be abolishing the social fund that traps millions of our people deeper into poverty and debt.
  Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the president of Pensioners' Voice, who says that Labour's commitment to pensioners is weak?
  Mr. Meacher: I did not see that and it surprises me because we are proposing—I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to include this in my speech—an extra £5 a week for the single pensioner, an extra £8 a week for the married pensioner on top of the normal uprating and, even more important in view of the experience of the past decade, to restore the link with earnings. As a result of that link being broken, pensioners have lost £12 a week if they are single and £20 a week if they are married. Our proposal is not weak—it is a formidable commitment.
  Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever criticism Pensioners' Voice may or may not have about our record and commitment, it has only contempt for what the Conservative Government have done and the fact that married pensioners have lost some £23 a week and single pensioners between £13 and £14 a week as a result of the decision taken in 1980? [Interruption.] I do not know what the junior Ministers are muttering about, but I know that many pensioners in Britain are bitterly disappointed that they are way behind pensioners in other European countries and that they are being treated with contempt by this Administration.
  Mr. Meacher: Labour also should be judged not by what it says but by what it does. The previous Labour Government increased, over five years, the real value of a

  997
  pension by 20 per cent., whereas 12 years of Conservative government—as the Secretary of State implicitly admitted when speaking about prices indexes—produced a real increase in the value of pensions of next to nothing. That is a formidable difference between the two parties, and one of which I am sure pensioners will take account at the next general election.
  Mr. David Sumberg: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in January 1987, in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnock), he voted in favour of free concessionary television licences for pensioners? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is Labour's intention to implement such a measure during its first year in office? If so, how much will it cost the taxpayer?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I cannot see how that question arises from the motions on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Meacher: I share your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, while I ought to answer relevant questions, I am being dragged a long way from the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has spoken for 19 minutes, but has not mentioned any of the orders once. If he is allowed to do that, the House ought to be permitted to hear his answer to my hon. Friend's question about concessionary television licences.
  Mr. Meacher: In that case, I shall certainly continue with my speech.
  For all the Prime Minister's soothing rhetoric, it is obvious that he does not believe in a classless society or in a welfare state for the needy. His record shows that he believes in a welfare state for the wealthy. Governments are not judged by little gestures—by a little concession or minor amendment here, a further detail there—they are judged by the changes that they make to overall flows of income and by their operation of the social security and taxation systems. That is the measure by which Governments stand or fall.
  In successive Budgets during the past decade, the Government have, according to independent estimates, engineered a rise in the incomes of the richest one tenth of the population of about £6 billion. According to a parliamentary answer that I received a week ago, the Government have also poured £3·75 million into a public subsidy during the past five years for private pensions for the well-off.
  On the other side of the balance sheet, according to the Government's own figures, during the past decade, pensioners have had £22 billion taken from them as a result of the break of the earnings link. That puts Conservative Members' comments into perspective. The Government's minuscule improvements are no doubt welcome, but they are insignificant when compared with the financial effect on pensioners of their other measures.
  The £22 billion would be enough to give every pensioner a Christmas bonus this year of more than £2,000.
  Sir Robert McCrindle: I invite the House to reflect on what happened when there was last a Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman said that he regrets the Government's severing the link between pensions and earnings and linking pensions to prices instead. Is it not the case that, when Labour was in power between 1974 and 1979, it gave an undertaking similar to that which the hon. Gentleman is now offering but, because of the state of the economy, on only three out of a possible five occasions was it possible to honour it?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is not right. The relevant consideration is what happened to pensions in overall terms. As I said, pensioners were 20 per cent. better off after five years of Labour government, but they are zilch better off after 12 years of Tory government. If the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) is satisfied with that, I hope that he will give that message to the electorate.
  Mr. David Shaw rose——
  Mr. Meacher: No, I must move on.
  Mr. Newton rose——
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken, but I will give way to him.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with the line of argument that he has used in the last few minutes. What matters to pensioners ultimately is the totality of the effect on them of Government policies. The combination of the pension uprating and the inflationary, taxation, and slow-growth policies pursued by Labour meant that the standard of living of pensioners rose by only 3 per cent. under a Labour Government, whereas average net incomes have risen by 31 per cent. under our Government.
  Mr. Meacher: Those figures have been used repeatedly, but they are fundamentally flawed in at least two respects. The growth in shareholding dividends that they incorporate—which can be considerable at a time of rapid growth—have been averaged out over all pensioners. That is absurd. There are some rich pensioners, and they have it all—but the majority of pensioners are poor, and some are very poor. What matters to the poorest of them all is what the Government have done in respect of the state retirement pension, or the additional pension through SERPS. Under the present Government, there has been no increase at all for the poorest 2 million pensioners. They are the people who really matter, because they do not enjoy the advantage of private pensions or of shareholdings. They are the responsibility of the Government and of our generation, yet they have enjoyed no real increase under the Conservatives. They enjoyed a 20 per cent. increase under the last Labour Government.
  Families have had £750 million pounds taken away from them as a result of the four-year freeze on child benefit. As a result of all the changes to national insurance benefits since 1979, claimants have had an additional £1 billion taken away from them by successive cuts in benefits. That was revealed in a written answer given on 6 February in reply to an excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
  Vast changes in income flows are continuing, and are growing year by year. The Government have already timetabled huge additional cuts for the future—most

  999
  notably the abolition of the additional pension for invalidity benefit, from which, in time, the Government will save no less than £1 billion per year, according to their own estimates. Staggering as it may seem, the Exchequer will gain more from cuts in benefit from the poorest one third of the nation than from the proceeds of all the Government's privatisations. That is not producing a classless society, but engineering the sharpest class division since the Edwardian era.
  This year, there has been a new phenomenon—one that has not occurred even during 11 years of Thatcherism. I refer to the creation of a new army of debtors, dependent on the ultimate safety net of income support, yet forced by punitive Government measures to subsist, in large numbers, below the poverty line. According to the Government's own estimates, nearly 750,000 people on income support will be subject this year to deductions because of the poll tax.
  The most recent Government figures that I have seen show that a further 430,000 people on income support have been forced to make social fund repayments averaging £5·25 a week. According to a number of parliamentary answers that I have received over the past two months, a further 250,000 families are repaying electricity and gas arrears averaging about £9 a week, 80,000 are paying back rent arrears, and 45,000 are repaying water charges. In all, more than 1·5 million people—one in seven of all those on income support—are now being forced below the poverty line by compulsory benefit deductions.
  Even earlier Tory Governments, in their most repressive phases, never did that. I wonder how many of the Government's grinning supporters realise what it really means. Indeed, I wonder whether a single hon. Gentleman opposite can tell me how much income support is received today by either a single or a married adult. I shall gladly give way to any Conservative Member, or indeed Minister, who can tell me.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman want a gender-free House of Commons?
  Mr. Meacher: I certainly do. If my terminology fails to adhere to that excellent principle, I apologise.
  I was, however, making a much more important point. I think that it speaks volumes that more than 1·5 million people are in such a position. It is interesting that not one Conservative Member can tell me the current level of income support for a single or a married adult, although a Conservative Government are forcing 1·5 million people to live below the poverty line. Government policy has condemned those people to live on less—sometimes substantially less—than £36·70 a week in the case of single adults over 25, and £57·60 a week in the case of married couples over 18, yet not one Conservative Member can give me the figures.
  Mr. Newton: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is using figures in what can only be described as a misleading way. Those figures take no account of the fact that either all or part of their mortgage interest—all of it, if they have been receiving benefit for any length of time—is being paid for those self-same people, amounting in some cases to substantial sums. If they are tenants, they will receive either a rent allowance or a 100 per cent. rent rebate, as long as they are also receiving income support. No one else
  1000
  uses the income figures in such a misleading way. Income support levels must be seen in the context of the meeting of housing costs—in full, in many cases.
  Mr. Meacher: Actually, they should be seen in the context of people being able to survive to pay all the costs of normal daily living. Housing is certainly one of those costs, but there are plenty of others, including food, clothing, transport and everything else that people require to look after themselves. I see that the Secretary of State at least has the grace to be embarrassed by what I have said: the figures are indeed deeply embarrassing. They suggest that 1·5 million people are receiving substantially less than income support. I have said before, and make no apology for doing so again, that one Tory Member—Matthew Parris, who is no longer in the House—who was young and fit tried to live on income support for a week, but was unable to do so even for that long. These people are being forced to live on it for months and years.
  Mr. Frank Field: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Secretary of State back to the Dispatch Box. Has he noticed that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his stance in less than five minutes? When he was talking about low income statistics, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was important not to use figures that took account of housing costs; he has now told us that it is important to think of income support as the amount remaining after housing costs have been met.
  Mr. Newton rose——
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has already made his speech. I realise, however, that he should probably be given an opportunity to reply to that point—although it was extraordinarily effective and relevant.
  Mr. Newton: It strikes me as the complete opposite of the real position. I complained before that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was concentrating on the figures after housing costs; I am now making exactly the same point—that he is concentrating on the benefit rates after housing costs, regardless of those costs.
  Mr. Meachers: The central point, from which the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape, is that, for the first time since Beveridge or perhaps a little earlier—I do not go back to the 1930s—people are being forced to live significantly, and sometimes substantially, below the Government's safety-net level. It is almost impossible to live satisfactorily and healthily on income support for a long time, but to force people to live below it is unbelievably punitive.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I will not give way again, especially in view of what the hon. Gentleman said to me earlier.
  Only the present Government have punished people for being poor. This new army of 1·5 million people is at the bottom of the heap—along with the homeless and those who sleep rough, whose numbers are unprecedented. The cuts in living standards go far wider. In a parliamentary answer that I received about a week ago, the Government admitted that single pensioners are now £12·80 a week worse off, and £20·50 a week worse off than they would have been if they had not broken Labour's earnings link.

  1001
  The Secretary of State, of course, says that the Government have kept up with prices, and that pensioners are no worse off in real terms. Even that proves untrue when we consider, as we must, pensioners' increased outgoings, notably the poll tax. This year, the average poll tax is likely to rise by about £1·15 a week. Following the implementation of the orders, pensioners will have less disposable income in real terms this year than last. The same will apply to many of the 2 million people who are unemployed—whose numbers may rise to 3 million within a year—and to hundreds of thousands of low-income families who are now £1·30 a week worse off for the first child and £2·30 a week worse off for the subsequent children as a result of the four-year child benefit freeze.
  Moreover—the Secretary of State touched on this—the latest evidence shows that thousands of elderly people, and people in residential and nursing homes, will be in even worse straits next year than this year. The most recent independent survey shows that the income support shortfall will rise this year—even after the increases proposed in the uprating orders—to some £25 a week in residential homes and some £52 a week in nursing homes. Evictions of elderly people and closures of homes can therefore be expected to increase. Even more ominous, the survey found that half of all registered homes now refuse to take elderly people who are receiving benefit and cannot afford to top it up from a private source at a rate of up to £52·60 a week. Those people will not receive the care that they need.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Meacher: It is disgraceful. For the first time, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hughes rose——
  Mr. Meacher: I have abundant evidence to support my comments.
  Another group—applicants to the social fund—is, in increasing numbers being faced with a blank order to go without. Last year, three quarters of such people were refused help. One quarter were refused help because their local Department of Social Security office did not have enough cash left. According to the recent devastating National Audit Office report published a fortnight ago, refusal rates are up to 73 per cent. for loans, up to 79 per cent. for grants and up to 51 per cent. for crisis loans.
  The Secretary of State said that the social fund allows assistance to be targeted on those most in need. That is Toryspeak for rationing. It is also a lie. Those most in need—those without any money—are the people most likely to be refused help on the ground that they cannot repay the loan. That must surely be the ultimate hypocrisy.
  The social fund is an ugly throwback to the Poor Law. It is a state-funded charity under which officers ration patently insufficient money among desperate claimants who have no right to an independent appeal against refusal. I can tell the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that there will not be a classless society, let alone any decency or civilised values of care and compassion, until the social fund and its authors are swept away.
  Our social security system is a negation of all that it should be. It does not provide social security; it provides a growing level of insecurity for millions of our people.
  1002
  Much of it is not administratively efficient, but wasteful. The National Audit Office report found that one third of the social fund's budget is spent on administration. The huge savings made by the computerisation programme are not being used to harmonise or improve the quality of the service. They have already been forfeited to the Treasury in staff cuts.
  The priorities of current policy do not reflect need, they reflect dogma. This year, £1 billion is being spent on tax reliefs for personal pensions while the neediest are turned away from the social fund in their thousands. The poorest pensioners and low-income families with children are being made even worse off this year and specific benefits continue to be cut—notably statutory sick pay, the motion about which we will certainly vote against tonight. Britain now has the lowest pensions in Europe in cash terms and as a proportion of average income. The same applies to many other benefits.
  After 12 years of Tory rule, poverty is again high on the political agenda as it shames the conscience of the nation. If the Government will not act to restore justice and decency in public life for all our citizens, the Labour party soon will after the general election.
  5.13 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I will be brief, as my colleagues want to challenge the picture of deprivation painted so poignantly during the past 45 minutes by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
  The hon. Member painted a poignant picture of an army of millions of paupers in the United Kingdom, with thousands of people who are beggared by an uncaring Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman should come to my constituency and witness the outstanding, first-class social services provision provided by a superb committee from county hall, and by first-class social workers.
  We have superb social workers in north Devon who care for the poorer elements in our society, of which there are many, because people regard the area as a Mecca. They come to live in Devon, but do not want to work. Instead, they try to live off the taxpayers in Devon.
  If the hon. Member for Oldham, West visits my constituency, he will see that the way in which society comports itself, even when it is in difficulty in relation to income, is different from the picture that he painted.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I will give way to someone who is not a cousin, but who perhaps should be.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Did my hon. Friend note that the amazing tirade from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was witnessed by a massive audience of only three Labour Back Benchers?
  Miss Emma Nicholson: That always seems to happen when Opposition Members believe that they can rant and rave to maximum effect. However, they only do that to empty Opposition Benches. That always happens on Supply days. It is extraordinary that so few Opposition Members turn up.
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West realises how much the age profile in this country and in

  1003
  other western nations is changing. We have a rising age profile. We are all getting older and living longer because of the health and welfare services run by this Government. We are also working longer, because there is not such a strict ceiling on working. We are living to a healthier old age, but we are having fewer children.
  I am not making a political point; I am trying to introduce realism into this debate, following the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. As a result of the rising age profile, the growing band of old people must be supported by an ever-shrinking group of younger earning people. We should look most keenly at those people in terms of income. I have a large number of pensioners in my constituency, and there is a rising age profile in Devon. In fact, in that respect, we are in advance of the rest of the country. However, as we grow older, we will all need to be supported by younger people who are earning, and that proportion of people is smaller than it has ever been.
  We should not think that pensioners today have paid for the totality of the health and welfare provision that they are receiving after retirement. They made the modest contributions that the state sought from them at the time. However, pensioners are now dipping into state benefits in a very big way, because so much more is available in terms of social benefits, and particularly in terms of health care, and the younger people are paying for that.
  Mr. David Shaw: In the picture that my hon. Friend paints, does she agree that, with the expanding number of pensioners and a smaller group of young people supporting them, we would expect, with limited resources, to find falling living standards for pensioners? However, under this Government, the reverse is the case. More pensioners than ever before own consumer goods such as televisions, telephones and cookers. Under this Government, the total income of pensioners has increased to record levels.
  Miss Nicholson: I agree. I have a note which tells me that, on average, between 1979 and 1987, pensioners' net incomes in total grew by 32 per cent. above inflation, which is more than five times faster than they grew under Labour, when there were fewer pensioners.
  It is important to strike a fair balance in society between pressure on younger earners and the proper welfare and health benefits that we offer the older recipients of those younger people's earnings. It is important to recognise that and not continually to ask unrealistically for full benefits across the spectrum of pensioners.
  More and more of us have second pensions. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly says, more and more people have a much wealthier life style than the word "pensioner" implies. According to the hon. Gentleman, when we think of pensioners, we might think of someone who is acutely poor. Yes, there are people who are pensioners and who are in poverty, and we must consider them even more rigorously than we have managed so far.
  Most pensioners are far better off than pensioners have ever been. They should be well off, and they should be able to have holidays in Florida, colour televisions, two cars, and a longer, healthier and wealthier life. Let us not run away with the idea, however, that that is every pensioner in the United Kingdom—it most certainly is not. My right hon. Friend has struck a fair balance, which is difficult to find, between pressure on younger earners and benefits for older pensioners.
  1004
  The hon. Gentleman remarked that the Government are not judged by little concessions. I agree—but nor were the previous Labour Government. However, my colleagues and I judge the current Labour Opposition by the proposed concessions that they disdainfully offer to the most needy group in our society, which must be those who are disabled, either mentally or physically. I am appalled that disabled people do not feature at all in Labour's priority social security pledges. They are just not there. They are an invisible element of society.
  Two weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Opposition spokesman on such matters, said that all promises to disabled people were contingent upon the capabilities of the economy. If disabled people are contingent upon the capabilities of the economy, and if the Labour party is in charge of the economy, there will be nothing for them.
  Mr. Flynn: Having studied the regulations with some care, I know that the only way in which they are related to the disabled concerns the changes in the statutory sick pay legislation. The result will be that it is much more difficult for disabled people to get jobs.
  Miss Nicholson: I refer to the excellent changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has offered for disabled people. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is on the Front Bench. Far from being uncaring and insensitive, my right hon. Friend treats the disabled on an equal basis, without the patronage that we frequently see in the Opposition.
  I am delighted to note the increase in mobility allowance, for example. That is no minor concession. The Government have increased the mobility allowance in real terms by 550 per cent. since 1978–79. The number of recipients has increased six times—it is well over 0·5 million and it is approaching 0·75 million. Also, £4 million of new money has been allocated to include the deaf-blind, and double amputees will be included from April 1991, with a new grant of £1 million to Motability to convert cars.
  Those are not concessions; they are ways of providing independence of thought, mobility, and accessibility to the disabled. That is what counts. They are a huge group of people. By any account, they are people in need. They genuinely cannot help themselves. They are very unlike the family in my constituency of whom I was reminded when we heard from Opposition Members about all the beggars in the United Kingdom. Indeed, three generations of one family—the grandfather and grandmother, father and mother, and now the children—are now living off the state. Not once has any member of that entire family done a job. They are beggars par excellence. Would hon. Members give more to such a family?
  It is acutely important that we give independence of thought, life and ability to work to the disabled. I am therefore very excited that we have now given far more money to help people to go to work if they are disabled. That is an important point, because the number of disabled people is rising. The Government instituted the first study of how many disabled people there are in the United Kingdom and of what their disabilities are. Also, there is a consultation paper, and we on the Select Committee on Employment did a special study and recently published our findings. The Government have

  1005
  proved their credentials time and time again to that most needy group in society. It is enormously important for employment and employment prospects for the disabled that matters such as the mobility allowance are taken into account and uprated as they have been.
  I strenuously welcomed the establishment of the independent living fund. I am delighted that its funding for 1991–92 has almost doubled compared with that of the current financial year. The fund has the flexibility which is the hallmark of the Government's treatment not only of the disabled but of those on lower incomes. Provision can be tailored finely to meet individual needs. Treatment is sensitive, and people are interviewed in their own homes.
  We now see the real divide between the Government and the Opposition. The blanket coverage that the Opposition desire and constantly demand for everyone in the United Kingdom whom they define in a patriarchal manner as in need is 1 million light years away from the truly thoughtful, sensitive, intelligent and accurate pinpointing of need by the Conservative Government. I believe that I have made my case in talking about what the Government have done for the disabled in this uprating, and I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: Unlike the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), I shall speak briefly, because, if the House will forgive me, I have a meeting at 5.30 pm. Also, unlike the hon. Lady, I have two points to make, and they are about the orders. Before the hon. Lady makes too much of the independent living fund, I bring her bad news. I share her views about the fund, but it is the Government's intention to chop the scheme when community care is introduced. If she wants to conduct a little campaign, many Opposition Members would join her.
  First, I refer to fees for residential care. Over the past 10 years we have witnessed a massive change from hospital care for our very elderly citizens to care in private residential nursing homes. That would not have mattered if the costs were not borne by some families. Many of my constituents not only fought through two world wars but, unlike the beggar family whom the hon. Lady frequently mentioned, worked every year that they could work, paid their contributions and expected that, at the end of their working lives, they would be looked after—if need be, in hospital.
  Now, in all our constituencies, some homes refuse access to constituents on benefits. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People may have seen the citizens advice bureau report which shows that, in some areas, no homes are taking constituents who are on income support. We have changed from a situation in which our older citizens could have expected care in hospital—I am not saying that that was a desirable aim, but there were no bills—to one in which people should be cared for in residential homes, and we are now finding that an increasing number are refused entry because they cannot pay.
  Also, an increasing group of constituents—pensioners—are being asked to pay a contribution to their parents' fees in nursing homes or residential homes. As the Minister knows, some of his hon. Friends can give him examples of contributions of about £25 per week being made to meet
  1006
  their parents' fees from the children's pensions. We shall shortly reach the stage where some of our constituents will face eviction. I know that the Government hope that, before that stage is reached, they will have managed to hand over that entire responsibility to the local authorities—although some of us may use the word "dumped". However, it is not a good enough policy for the Government to hope that time will be on their side and that that responsibility will not be theirs, but one for the local authorities to accept.
  I hope that, with the help of the careful information that he will have been given by his hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, the Minister will to some extent share with the House his thoughts on this matter. We may be faced with evictions, and we should debate this issue now, rather than wait until it is raised in an emergency debate once evictions occur.
  I am grateful for the increases that the orders make. They are necessary and go some of the way, although not the whole way, that we have been seeking.
  In the single minute left to me, I shall concentrate on the second issue that I wish to raise, child benefit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, we now have a new regime. The upratings relate to the old regime. I do not want in any way to detract from the credit that must go to the Government team for getting through this botched measure, because, although it is indeed botched, that is not its importance. What is important is that, when getting the increase through, the old regime was nailed to a commitment to continue child benefit. All hon. Members are grateful to the Treasury Bench for achieving that.
  However, there are now some difficulties with the child benefit scheme, about which I asked a serious question, but did not receive a serious answer. Both the Tory party and the Government are debating the future shape of the scheme. It is right that there should be such a debate in those two organisations, but it should be more open. Between 7 million and 8 million mothers draw child benefit every week. I do not think that the Government should conduct a review about the future shape of the child benefit scheme, guaranteeing that child benefit should remain, but wanting to debate the way in which the money is spent, in private, without including mothers or some of their representatives who are among my hon. Friends——
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: And among my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Field: Yes, and among Conservative Members.
  In his reply, perhaps the Minister could give us some idea about the way in which the Government see the future shape of the child benefit scheme. We do not want the old patter, which states that it will be there for ever. We are grateful for that, and we know that we are in a new situation. We want to take the debate further. As a result of the Minister being open and honest with us, we might have a really good debate in the country as a whole about what mothers would like the future shape of child benefit to be, instead of about what a few Ministers or Members of Parliament would like.
  I said that I would be brief, and I have already taken two minutes longer than I set myself, but I wanted to raise not only the issue of the future shape of child benefit but also, despite the Government's brave talk about how much more money is being allocated to cover the costs of

  1007
  residential care, the real problems of residential care provision, to which we shall have to face up before frail and elderly people are evicted on to the streets.
  5.33 pm
  Sir Anthony Durant: My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said that the Opposition's proposals do not mention disability. I must correct my hon. Friend and advise her that the Opposition document refers to a scheme for a new disability benefit. However, what the Opposition have not told anybody is how much it would cost or how it would be introduced. We do not know how the Opposition's proposals will work and we have not been given any costings. Nevertheless, as disability benefit is mentioned in one of the Labour party's documents, I must correct my hon. Friend.
  The Government's record on pensions is not bad at all. Pensioners' total incomes are up by 32 per cent., on average—and it is total income that matters to pensioners, not the amount of state pension, which is a different issue altogether.
  There are three types of pensioner and the differences between them are growing daily. The first group comprises the 50 per cent. of all pensioners who now have a second pension. Indeed, more than 70 per cent. of people currently retiring now have second pensions, many of which are substantial. Those people have quite a good life. On top of that, the Government have legislated to ensure that private pensions should be automatically increased by 3 per cent. per year to take account of the inflationary spiral. That, too, will help pensioners tremendously. Hon. Members of all parties have wished to ensure that people of pensionable age are well provided for.
  The second group of pensioners comprises those who have low incomes and few resources but who live in a property that they own. Very often, those pensioners do not know how to get out of that property or what to do about it as it becomes run down. The Government should have taken more seriously what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) proposed to try to enable those pensioners to use some of the money tied up in their houses to do up the property and obtain some tax relief while so doing. They may wish to sell the property, or they may wish to continue living there, but in better conditions. That group of pensioners certainly exists in my constituency.
  The third group of pensioners comprises the small and declining group who do not have a second pension and who depend solely on the state pension and other state benefits. They are the poor group in our society, and I accept that they exist. Although they are a diminishing number, they are getting more resentful. Many of them live in old people's homes, where people with second pensions may also be living, but rather more comfortably. As the state-dependent group does not have the same amount of money, pensioners in that group feel more aggrieved.
  That is why I strongly support the Government's move to put money in that direction. The Government have started to do that, and the uprating proposes a further £78 million to increase the benefits for those on the lowest incomes. The right way to tackle pensions is to acknowledge that it is the total income which matters, not the basic pension.
  1008
  The Labour party has promised an extra £5 per week for single pensioners, but it has not mentioned uprating the whole thing to put back the money that Opposition Members keep saying that pensioners have lost. They are careful not to promise that, because it would result in enormous bills, which they do not want. The Labour party has said that it will link the basic state pension to prices and incomes, as used to happen, but I wonder whether it will actually do that if it ever comes into office. Its promises on pensions do not always live up to expectations.
  As I have said, we have three groups of pensioners. There are those now benefiting from a second pension, who are doing extremely well and are very comfortable. There are those who have problems with their houses, many of whom have low incomes and only a small amount of capital. Then there is the smaller group, which is declining all the time, which comprises those who are dependent on the basic state pension and other benefits. That is the group that we must assist and on which we must concentrate. The Government have started to do that, by providing a further £78 million today.
  The Labour party always talks about looking after the poor and those on low incomes, but what really matters to pensioners is inflation and what always happens with a Labour Government—it will happen again if the Labour party takes office—is that inflation takes off. Inflation averaged 16 per cent. when Labour was last in office, which meant that pensions diminished in value. Pensioners would be unwise to think that they would get a better long-term deal from the Labour party. What it says sounds attractive and very nice, but the reality of the Labour party's last period in office was that inflation increased and pensions decreased. The present Government have a good record. I support what they are doing on pensions, and I am proud to sit on this side of the House and to be a member of the Conservative party.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant). I understand and sympathise with the point that he made when he identified a group of poorest pensioners, which he described as small and diminishing. Although it may be a diminishing group, it is certainly not small. We should not make light—I appreciate that he did not seek to do so—of the problems that they face. What worries me more than anything else in the Government's policy is that they are not taking any steps to address the diminishing value of the state pension in relation to the income available to the rest of the earning community. I accept that it is a difficult matter which could involve large sums of money.
  Irrespective of whether one believes that universal increases in benefits should be available to all, between now and the beginning of the next century the Government—whatever their colour—will have to address the fact that, year in and year out, the group of pensioners to whom the hon. Member for Reading, West referred is losing out in relation to the community fortunate enough to be in work. The hon. Gentleman said that the £78 million was welcome, and indeed it is, so far as it goes, but it does not begin to deal with the problem. This is not just a problem for the coming year, to which the orders relate, but one that pensioners have experienced for the past five years, and it will continue for the next 15, 20 or

  1009
  25 years until all pensioners have second pensions. Everyone recognises that, when my generation comes to retire, people will have occupational pensions and second pensions, will own their own homes, and so on. There is indeed an urgent problem, but the hon. Gentleman is not right to say that the Government are addressing it adequately.
  I wish to ask a few questions in the context of the background against which the orders are being introduced. I am worried by some of the admittedly anecdotal evidence from my casework and other sources that the problem of indebtedness is getting out of hand. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) rightly mentioned debt, and the consequences of financial deregulation have had far-reaching effects throughout the economy in terms of monetary policy, banking and so on. One of the implications which is only now coming home to me fully is that people in dire financial circumstances can get hold of enormous amounts of credit without any security. Week in and week out, I see more and more evidence that that is exactly what is happening.
  Even in my constituency, rent arrears are reaching worrying proportions. Poll tax arrears are also becoming extremely worrying. The House should remember that Scotland is a year ahead of the rest of the country. Mortgage repossessions throughout the country are further evidence of the debt problem. Fuel costs and water charges are exacerbating the debt problem. Welcome though the increases in the orders may be so far as they go, evidence is coming through that there is a real problem out there for a large section of the community and it has not been addressed by the Government.
  I have dealt substantially with the points about pensioners made by the hon. Member for Reading, West. I trust that the Government will not take the problems of pensioners lightly. The Government gave pensioners the Lawson bonus 18 months or two years ago. A one-off payment of £2·50 was made to certain elderly pensioners. I am not necessarily in favour of such piecemeal payments because the problems are more urgent and need a more strategic long-term approach and to be dealt with adequately. However, I hope that one-off payments are not off the agenda as an immediate way to bring some urgent relief to a section of our retired population.
  As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, there is a debate in the Conservative party and in the Government about child benefit. That is of fundamental importance. It is happening in my party, too. In the approach to a general election, parties reconsider their policies. I detect from the tone of the debate today that the general election is not far away because of the manner in which manifestos and statistics were traded across the Floor of the House. Luckily, most of the political ammunition goes above my head, so I propose to keep my head down for as long as I can. The debate on the future of child benefit is crucial. Some 7 million mothers receive it and £250 million is paid out. It is a major plank in any Government's policy.
  If any fundamental changes are to be made, they should be debated in the open, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead said. Also, any changes that are to be made must be expressly included in party manifestos. In the recent past it has worried me that some of the social
  1010
  security changes that we have witnessed were virtually not discussed during the general election campaign. That happened during the time of the present Administration, so my objection is targeted exclusively at the Conservative Government. My plea is that if there are to be changes in child benefit, they should be discussed openly beforehand and included explicitly in the election manifestos of all major political parties.
  I have a series of short questions about the detail of some of the orders. I may have missed them, but I have not seen any published figures for the level of the social fund budget for the next financial year. I do not know when that will appear in the annual cycle of uprating statements, public expenditure announcements, White Papers, and so on. If the figure has not yet been published, I hope that the Government will do so shortly. Certainly, the grants and loans budget, even if it is only uprated in line with inflation, should be in the region of £230 million. My experience—I am sure that it is not unique—is that even that will not be enough to meet the demand. Certainly it is not enough to meet demand for community care grants and to move towards implementing the community care system of finance. The amounts paid in grants must be watched carefully during the period of these orders. I hope that consideration is being given to increasing significantly the community care grants within the social fund.
  I cannot possibly make a speech on the uprating orders in relation to the social fund without saying a word about severe weather payments. We have been up hill and down dale since the beginning of the year on this. I understand perfectly that it is not an easy matter to deal with, and the Minister of State is on record as saying that a review is to be undertaken. I hope that the review will be undertaken quickly, because the experience during the recent unusually cold snap was not happy. Statistical evidence is beginning to filter through from reports that large numbers of people in Britain have suffered as a result of the cold weather this year and that that was not an accident. That needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
  We may see substantial, indeed swingeing, increases in the level of the poll tax in the near future. I do not want to get into a battle about who is responsible——
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Before the hon. Gentleman goes on to his next point, I remind him that I am committed to reviewing the cold weather payments. He said that many people had suffered. We deemed the whole country as qualifying to trigger the cold weather payment during the period of the most excessive cold, and we made the necessary payments. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me as much evidence as he has to assist my review. I want to listen to the constituency experiences of all hon. Members. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have any evidence that he has, I will take it into account.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I take the spirit of that intervention as helpful. I was referring to the statistical evidence that our mortality rates during the winter months are worse than in other countries. I accept that the whole country was entitled to cold weather payment. That was welcome, but there was some confusion about the way in which the payment was introduced.

  1011
  With regard to increases in the community charge, the House will know that in 1988–89 the Government compensated people on benefit for having to pay 20 per cent. of their community charge or poll tax. Substantial increases in poll tax are in the pipeline in Scotland—I do not know about other parts of the country—far in excess of any compensation that the Government ever envisaged. The Government decided to increase benefits by about £1·30 per week to compensate for the 20 per cent. payment. That will have to be reassessed in view of the current level of increases in community charge that people face, especially as water charges are not rebateable at all.
  In Scotland, water rate charges have certainly been spiralling. Even with the recent relief scheme for the community charge, benefit increases do not compensate for the basic increases that have to be paid. If the Government could identify the level of compensation within income support that is earmarked to address the extra amounts that poll tax payers and water charge payers have to meet, that would help. The Government may not have realised that poll tax and water charges would spiral.
  The Audit Commission report said that one of the most cost-effective things that the Government could do would be to sweep away the 80 per cent. enforced ceiling on rebates, because the net benefit annually to the average person paying a 20 per cent. poll tax contribution is £6, while the net collection cost is £15. It would save money if the Government did away with the 20 per cent. enforced contribution.
  I support everything that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said about residential charges. The Price Waterhouse report suggested that Scotland was the second most expensive area outside London for ordinary residential charges; I am not talking about charges in nursing homes or specialist homes. The increase of £5 in residential home fees is not enough. I have evidence of friends, neighbours and family having to contribute in order to meet residential home charges.
  I hope that the Government will do something about national insurance benefits for fishermen. I was given the opportunity to raise the issue by the Secretary of State's announcement about a change in class 2 payments. I welcome that, because it has been a bone of contention in the recent past for fishermen. The change in the weekly earnings rule, coupled with the new lower earnings limit, puts fishermen at a disadvantage in terms of unemployment benefit, particularly if half the eight day tie-up is in one week and the other half in the second week. Fishermen can earn enough in the working days of both weeks to take them out of benefit. That is an unfair consequence of the recent benefit changes, and I hope that the Government will review it.
  In relation to non-dependant deductions on applicable amounts for housing benefit, can someone tell me why there have never been stiff increases? According to my arithmetic, the increase is 25 per cent. The sums were done by me, so they may be suspect. So far as I can see, however, the non-dependant deductions at the higher level have gone up from £10·85 to £13·50—a 25 per cent. increase. Even at the lower level there is a 25 per cent. increase—from £4·55 to £5·70. I do not understand that, and I would welcome clarification.
  I have come across the case of two 19-year-old non-dependants with someone who was claiming housing benefit. I do not know what average local authority rents
  1012
  are in other parts of the country, but £27 per week is the about average in my area. If two non-dependant 19-year-olds both get assessed at £13·50, it means that the householder will be deprived of all housing benefit and will have to meet the full rent. If the non-dependants happen to be unemployed, that produces further financial and domestic problems. I do not understand why there should be a 25 per cent. hike when there are much lower increases in other areas. Is there a different way of calculating the non-dependant deductions? If so, I am unaware of it. I should like clarification.
  I do not think that the Government's announcement and these upratings do anything other than the Government are statutorily obliged to do. There may have been small increases and insofar as there have been increases, I welcome them, but we need something more if the Government are to show that they recognise the stark financial reality faced by many poor pensioners and families.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. John Bowis: I am pleased to support my right hon. Friend's proposals in the package of upratings of benefits. It is yet another step forward by the Government in looking after people who need our support. I had hoped that the debate would have been a serious discussion, with observations from both sides of the House on how to improve benefits still further, bring in new schemes, enhance existing ones and so on. Although I exempt the hon. Members for Roxborough and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who spoke briefly, I cannot exempt the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) from the charge of not really being interested in the welfare of the people we are seeking to help. He was much more interested in trying to make party political points in what he presumably sees as the run-up to a general election in the not too distant future.
  The hon. Gentleman's speech was amazingly disappointing. I can only imagine that he looked at the proposals before him, realised that his party when in power had not produced such ideas, and tried to camouflage the fact that it had come up with nothing in the past and had no credible policies for the future. When one meets people who are in need or those who look after them, one hears of great respect for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State who is responsible for people with disability. One does not hear much about the hon. Member for Oldham, West; having heard him today, we understand why.
  The Government cannot solve overnight the problems of all the people in need. They have never claimed to do so, but when they perceive a problem and understand it, they bring forward solutions. Under the Conservative Government, we have had a remarkable and sustained improvement in the living standards of people in the groups about which we have been talking.
  One has only to consider the overall position of pensioners. Of course one can find individual pensioners who have not done as well as others, but the broad band of pensioners have been much better off under the Government, partly because of the improvement in the economy, partly because of the Government's ability to

  1013
  get inflation under control and partly because of the benefits in cash and in kind that older people have received from the Government.
  Pensioners are better off to the tune of over 30 per cent. in real terms since the Government came into power. That is the result of a combination of factors. Pensioners' income from savings has gone up phenomenally because of high interest rates. Occasionally, pensioners slightly regret a tumble in interest rates. Nevertheless, low inflation and sound investments mean that pensioners have done better from their savings. They have also done considerably better from occupational pensions.
  Is it possible to tabulate comparisons with our friends and neighbours in the European Community? One often hears misleading statements about how we compare with other countries. In any given figures, the comparison is often of like with unlike. Perhaps the spouse is not covered by a non-contributory pension in the other country, whereas that spouse is covered here. Perhaps the comparison does not take account of benefits in kind from local or national Government. It would be helpful to have real comparisons instead of occasionally misleading statistical ones.
  I am always ready to press my right hon. Friends to go further on that category of pensioner who is just above benefit level and tends to miss out. I do so for good reason, because I spoke about that in my maiden speech. Such pensioners do not get the basic benefit, and, on top of that, they miss out on consequential benefits. I am especially pleased that, this year, the Government have introduced an additional benefit for those pensioners on low income who receive enough from that income to be judged above the benefit level. I am sure that the extra £1 a week will help such pensioners, but I urge my right hon. Friends to go further.
  It is good to note that the problems associated with child benefit are being solved. I refer to that tentatively as I remember the days when our late colleague, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, tabled an amendment to Government policy to ensure that we did not forget the aims behind child benefit—to help children judged to be in need, especially those who may not be caught by other benefits. I supported the change advocated by Sir Brandon, and I am pleased to note that the Government have now found it possible to increase the benefit for the first child. I hope that they will continue to study how further improvements could be made—for example, benefits for children under five. Certainly there are merits in that.
  I am conscious of the need to consider other ways in which to improve the income of families with children. The measures taken to encourage fathers who have deserted their families to make a contribution is welcome.
  I am pleased to note the proposals on nursing and residential homes. The Price Waterhouse factor has, I am sure, led to the additional support for nursing homes in the uprating. The extra £45 per week, together with the London supplement, is welcome. I am also pleased to note the emphasis given to centres geared to people with alcohol and drug-related problems. I pressed for such improvements some months ago for the Davies centre, which is part of the Turning Point group. That centre helps
  1014
  people who have come out of detoxification units to go back into the community and without such support those people would find that difficult.
  The Government should consider, however, voluntary hospices and the contributions that they invite, but do not demand, from their patients. Department of Social Security offices have disallowed those contributions to be taken as supplements to income support. I know the arguments about that, but that is a hard ruling, as it requires the voluntary hospice movement to make a charge when it has not done so previously. That ruling has affected people with a short lifespan. Many hospices are reluctant to make that charge, so they are losing out.
  The House has a particular duty to look after people with disabilities. I welcome the various measures that have already been introduced, but it is important to continue to consider the various problems associated with living and coping with disability, mobility and the ability to work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for creating the independent living fund and I hope that, whatever the future may bring, that scheme, or something like it, will continue. I especially welcome the fact that that fund has been doubled this year. The improvements in invalidity care allowance, motability and mobility allowances are also welcome.
  People with disabilities are always close to our hearts when we consider policy. We have reached the stage where we no longer lock away people with disabilities; rather, we encourage them and enable them to come into the community. Children with disabilities are no longer automatically sent to special schools or colleges—we have enabled them to join mainstream schools and colleges. People with disabilities now work in shops, offices, factories and even in this House. Those people no longer work in enclosed workshops in residential homes. We have enabled people to get to work under their own steam so that they do not have to wait to be wheeled out from their homes. We have enabled people to nurture hopes and ambitions to achieve things with their lives. The carers allowance also means that we look after those who look after people with disabilities.
  If we accept that there is nothing that people with disabilities cannot achieve if the House, Government and nation so enable as a result of various measures, such as the allowances we are discussing today, we shall do right by them and by all the others for whom we have a duty of care.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport-West): Sir Thomas Beecham used to refer to the encores that he gave at the end of his concerts as "musical lollipops". They were always pieces of music that were light and attractive, but there was no great substance to them. Since the new Prime Minister took over, we have seen the advent of political lollipops. At various Question Times, the Prime Minister—the Secretary of State for Social Security did the same today—has contrived to award such a lollipop to the waiting, admiring population. Those lollipops have a mammouth publicity value, but are protozoan in terms of the money they represent.
  Today the Secretary of State announced an incease of £10,000, equivalent to a 50 per cent. increase, in the award to the parents of vaccine-damaged children. That money will go to about five families a year, so the amount

  1015
  awarded is microscopic in terms of the available budget. Those families have suffered a particularly harrowing experience. Part of the grief felt by the parents for a dead child is guilt. That feeling is especially harrowing in the case of vaccine-damaged children, because the parents took a deliberate decision—with no blame to themselves—that resulted in that damage.
  Everyone will welcome the award to those parents, but we are entitled to display some cynicism about it. The uprating of that award is below the level of earnings at which it should have been set—it is possibly above the level of inflation—and it is significant only because it applies to a small number of children. In other cases, tens of thousands, even millions, of children are involved, but there has been no such generosity or uprating.
  One of the most important changes has been that to child benefit—rightly described as a "botch-up". I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that it is good to see the log-jam broken, and that that benefit will no longer be allowed to wither on the vine. The £1 increase for the first child—it is not in the uprating order, but in separate regulations—is slightly more than the going rate of benefit. For the first child, that extra £1 is more than the 10·9 per cent. allowed for inflation for a one-child family, but the increase is less than that 10·9 per cent. for a two-child family—10·9 per cent. of £14·50 is £1·58. Those families are losing when one takes into account the inflation rate. The larger the family, the greater the shortfall. A four-child family would need £3·16 to compensate for inflation. but they shall receive only £1.
  All lone parents not getting means-tested benefits will lose, including those with only one child. A one-parent family with one child now gets £7·25 plus £5·60 one-parent benefit, which is not being increased—a total of £12·85. The uprating on that amount would have been £1·40, and lone parents will only receive an extra £1. Therefore, a one-parent family with two children would need an extra £2·19 to compensate for inflation, but will receive just £1.
  The reduction in the child dependency allowance increases by £1 per week per family to deprive them of the extra £1 benefit. There will not be four or five such payments a year, but 192,000. That is not included in the uprating order, but will be achieved subsequently by regulation. However, the order covers the partner's earning limits, above which the child dependency increases cease to be payable. They are to be increased in line with prices, when they should obviously be increased in line with earnings. They were introduced in 1984, when the limit was set at £80 for the first child, plus £10 for each subsequent child. Since then, average earnings have risen by 70 per cent., so the limit should now be £136, plus £17 for each additional child. Instead, the new limit will be £110, plus £14—a significant cut.
  The £1,000 widow's payment remains the same, but there are not four or five widows in the country, but tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of widows who regularly claim benefit, which has been frozen for the third year running. It has been frozen for nearly six years since it was announced in June 1985—and it was not introduced until April 1988. It replaced the former widow's allowance, which used to be paid at a higher rate than other widows' benefits for the first six months of widowhood. If the widow's allowance had not been abolished, it would have increased over that period from £50·10 a week to £72·80—an increase of 45 per cent. On
  1016
  that basis, the £1,000 should now be £1,450—the Government have made enormous savings by cutting the amount given to widows.
  In Committee, Social Security Ministers take an affable approach; we all find them persuasive and want to believe what we are told. But it is interesting to recall that, when the widow's allowance was replaced by a lump sum widow's payment in 1986, the present Secretary of State resisted an amendment providing for automatic annual increases and told the Standing Committee:
  "When the final decisions on all rates of the new benefits under the Bill are taken in the autumn of 1987, we shall obviously consider whether it would be appropriate to change the level of widow's benefit stated in the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 April 1986; c. 1439.]
  Will the Minister say why it has not been considered appropriate to change the important benefit given to widows? In 1986, the Committee might well have taken a different view of the proposal if the Minister had admitted that the £1,000 payment was to be frozen indefinitely.
  Although most of the means-tested benefit rates are increasing in line with prices—excluding the housing benefits—the disregards are not. In particular, the £3,000 capital disregard has been frozen, not only since it was introduced in 1988, but since it was announced in 1985 in a Green Paper on the reform of social security. Merely to compensate for price increases since then, the benefit should be not £3,000, but £4,350.
  All these increases are subtle and hidden, they are not obvious. They are not introduced with a blare of trumpets and trombones from the Dispatch Box, but they represent deep cuts. Similarly, since it was increased in November 1983 the £500 capital limit for social fund payments has been frozen for everyone except those aged 60 or over. Et was then the capital limit for single payments under the supplementary benefit regulations. Since then, prices have risen by more than 50 per cent., so the limit should be more than £750 just to keep pace with inflation, let alone with earnings.
  The child benefit regulations provide £1 extra for the single family. I remember in another Committee discussing a comment by Beveridge, when he talked about certain anomalies and said he hoped that they were buried for ever and would never again rise from their dishonoured grave, but for us, another little nasty has been resurrected by that extra £1. An important advantage of child benefit compared to the pre-1976 system of family allowance is that it is payable at the same rate for every child in the family. The family allowance excluded the first child, and complicated rules were needed to decide, if parents were separated—unhappily, an increasing occurrence—whether the two children were members of the same family or different families.
  The extra £1 reintroduces those complications, since it is payable only to the first child. Hence the incomprehensible provisions of regulation 2(b), about which I have written to the Minister—I longingly await his reply. If my interpretation of the regulation is correct, it will, in some cases, disqualify both parents from receiving the extra £1, which is obviously nonsense and cannot be the intention.
  Further anomalies arise from the statutory sick pay regulations, upon which we shall vote tonight, and I believe that they will be the subject of a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
  Tonight, Social Security Ministers are working their old magic like the old illusionists they are and providing, up

  1017
  front, obvious little benefits—tiny lollipops; but under the welter of complex social security legislation, there are deep and serious cuts.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who produced his statistics more briefly than the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who kept us for 42 minutes and spent hardly any time on the orders.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West forgot to remind us that it was a Labour Chancellor who, in 1967, was the first to try to take family allowance away from the majority of families. He also forgot to tell us about the child benefit cheat—when the House approved the move to combine child tax allowances and family allowances to produce a child benefit, with which the Labour Government refused to go ahead. He also talked about a Christmas bonus of £2,000, but forgot to tell us that the Labour party took away a Christmas bonus of £10. This strikes me as the sort of sterile speech which we are used to hearing from the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and the sooner he is moved on to other pastures to make way for the hon. Member for Newport, West, the faster we shall proceed in our debates.
  There are some serious problems to tackle in the years ahead, and we should approve the orders. I shall spend a few moments talking about what has been called child benefit, but which I think should be called child cash allowance. In the mid-1970s, we discussed whether it would be more sensible to get rid of child tax allowances, whereby the rich received more and people below the tax threshold got nothing. No one then anticipated that the name "child benefit" would mean that it would always be argued about in the bilateral discussions between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury.
  A problem was anticipated, which was why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who became the Chancellor, and Patrick Jenkin, the then Member for Wanstead and Woodford, agreed in 1978 that child benefit would not be taken into account in social security spending but would, in effect, be netted off against tax.
  We face two problems, for which I do not in any way blame the present Front Bench team or the Chief Secretaries over the years. It is in the nature of the bilaterals for the Chief Secretary to ask how he can squeeze down Government spending, while the Department of Social Security wants to concentrate help on those who most need it. Those are the two functions; the problem is a functional one.
  I have a proposal that I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to comment on in winding up. I expect that he will spend most of his time batting the hon. Member for Oldham, West round the court. I suggest, first, that the debate should consider whether there should be an allowance for the child. If the answer is clearly yes, taxable capacity is reduced and needs are increased. Plainly there should be a child allowance. Secondly, is it better for the allowance to be a tax allowance or cash? It should be a cash allowance and decisions about the level of such allowances should be removed from the Department of Social Security, thereby lifting one of the
  1018
  burdens from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Decisions about child allowance should be made by the Treasury.
  I have discovered a secret in the House. In answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle), my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury said that she would not answer any questions about child benefit because the Budget is on the way. That reply is contained in the Official Report of 31 January 1991, column 1094. The Minister of State gave the same reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). I do not think that that was a coded signal, because I do not think that the next Budget will set the level of child cash allowances. If I am wrong and I have underestimated the speed at which the Treasury accepts the logic of an argument, I shall willingly apologise, by public press release and not secretly in the House.
  The term "child benefit" is a mistake. It is sensible for the Treasury to ask the Department of Social Security to be the paying agency, but the allowance must be taken out of the public expenditure round. That is where things have gone wrong. It is wrong to say that, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) had continued as Prime Minister, we would not have had the same improvement. I believe what I have heard—that the previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security had agreed and shown the results of their agreement to my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister before all the excitement.
  The freeze for the three years before that was a mistake, and I said so when I was a Minister. If we are to avoid such mistakes, we must change the name of the benefit and transfer the responsibility. When we do that, we will make further progress and the child allowance will not just be indexed to inflation, but increased. There was newspaper speculation that the previous Prime Minister had some people in.
  Mr. Newton: I had no intention of getting involved in this issue. I thought that I had listened carefully to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). If the hon. Gentleman seriously suggested or implied that the child benefit increase had anything to do with the change of Prime Minister and leadership of the Conservative party, he was talking utter nonsense. The uprating statement was made the best part of a month before the events in question.
  Mr. Bottomley: I do not think that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said that. It was mentioned slightly earlier, when we were discussing new and old regimes. I hope that we can move the matter forward. Child allowance should be cash or a tax allowance. I hope that we will hear less from David Willetts until he comes to the House.
  Sir Timothy Raison: I cannot give an authoritative answer on these issues, but my hon. Friend should explain why he thinks that the Treasury would be more generous than the Department of Social Security.
  Mr. Bottomley: The Treasury would have to consider the matter when it considered the proportion of mortgage relief granted to people with incomes of more than £20,000 a year. About 50 per cent. of that relief goes to those of us

  1019
  who are so poor that we have mortgages of £30,000 or more and pay tax at the rate of 40 per cent. or more. The value of the tax relief to two people, perhaps television producers or trade union officials, with a combined income of £70,000 a year, is equivalent to 12 child benefits every year and not just during the years when they have children. When the Treasury and the Inland Revenue look at the issue, they will come up with the answer that they used to give and not an answer relating to the structural problem and the name problem.
  Having trespassed on the House's hospitality for the second day running, I had better stop. I hope that my speech has been noted. May I please be told whom to ask to get involved in these discussions—whether they are members of the party or the Government? Perhaps that information could also be given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). That would enable all of us to move forward, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) before he moves off to advertising. I hope that the House can find some suitable structure.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I am pleased to reply to my first debate on social security. This is probably the last uprating debate before the general election, and therefore the last time that I and my hon. Friends will speak on uprating from this side of the House. In that context, it is worth looking back at the social security dark ages, from which we shortly hope to emerge, and towards the enlightenment that is about to begin.
  I reaffirm the whole notion of national insurance. It is to the credit of neither Conservatives nor Labour Governments that ordinary people now feel remote from and unconnected to national insurance, which has become an almost secret tax raising revenue of billions of pounds. One of our prime tasks in government will be to ensure that we not only address the level and scope of benefits but that we return to the whole idea of a communal insurance policy. We shall return that idea to the heart of the civilised values that we cherish.
  There is such a thing as society, and our standard will be an honest national insurance fund separate from taxation and able to meet needs as they arise. That will be a monumental task, and that is evident when we look at the overgrowth of political expediency and short-tennism which encrusts the present system. One of the worst abuses of that system has been the rip-off of our pension funds to the tune of perhaps £10 billion. That matter is still being investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, which will no doubt report in due course.
  Mr. Scott: It is important for the hon. Gentleman to clarify his suggestion.. Is he saying that the whole of the social security system as we presently understand it, with its contributory and non-contributory benefits, will be funded from a new national insurance fund? If so, how will contributions to that fund be paid by employers and employees, and what will be the level of contribution?
  Mr. Allen: No, I am not suggesting that. If I am ever in charge of a review, I shall rule nothing in and rule nothing out.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the orders.
  Mr. Allen: I shall resist any temptation by the Minister of State to go wide of the terms of the orders.
  There is evident extravagance and profligacy about subsidising and sweetening private pension companies. Therefore, I hope that no Conservative Member is brainless enough to ask where all the money will come from to give decent pensions to the elderly and adequate child benefit to the mothers. The great SERPS robbery—a wholly party political racket—makes even the £1 million a day fraud by employers on insurance stamps look like a minor misdemeanour, yet both sets of villains have escaped attention—first, because of the technical nature of the offences and, secondly, because the victims are tomorrow's pensioners. Like the sleeping victims of a burglary, they do not know what awaits them and will not find out until morning.
  Many of today's pensioners know better, because they have seen what the Government have done to the basic state pension. However hard the Conservatives wriggle, and whatever statistical wheeze they employ, the plain fact that hangs around their necks and will stay there until the election is that breaking the earnings link has robbed the single pensioner of £12·80 a week and a couple of £20·50 a week. That is not a one-off smash and grab, but a recidivist return each and every week so long as they shall live.
  Much has been said today about child benefit. The uprating, such as it is, bears all the hallmarks of a "John'll fix it". First, there is a lack of will to tackle the real problem, thinly concealed by a half-hearted, half-baked and, above all, half-priced gesture. One can picture the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the last days of the Thatcher Reich—with high interest rates, a massive trade deficit and looming recession all around him—struggling with the knotty problem of which twin should be awarded the new first-born benefit—or should it have been the "Eastbourne" benefit?
  Not that honest John would ever try to purchase short-term popularity for a by-election victory. I cannot help thinking that the phrase
  "Child benefit will continue to be paid as now"
  must have been put in the Conservative manifesto in 1987 by somebody, perhaps a junior Social Security Minister—some anal retentive determined to tell the literal truth, but misleading the gullible, rather in the way that the Prime Minister said recently that the last Labour Government did not have a cold weather payments scheme. That too is literally true, but it ignores the fact that, because of the generous extra needs payments and the electricity discount scheme then in operation, but abolished by the Conservative Government, such a scheme was not necessary. It is petty, it is cheap, and "it is coming to a social security office near you".
  Whatever way one looks at these uprating orders, one sees a shabby deal—a budget cut here, a corner cut there. The social fund is a very sad example. The fund is meant to help the most needy in our society—those from broken homes, ex-prisoners, former drug abusers, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped, and the plain poor. Despite this, the budget is a fraction of the one under the scheme that it replaced, and two thirds of payments come in the form of loans rather than grants—loans, to people already trying to live on £30 or £40 a week.
  The Conservative Government should be ashamed of themselves. Instead, they find someone else to blame. In this instance, they foist the blame on the local offices of the

  1021
  Department of Social Security, whose social fund budgets are so constricted that ridiculous anomalies arise. At the Public Accounts Committee on Monday, I drew the attention of the permanent secretary of the Department to a particular case in my constituency. A battered wife from the Nottingham, North women's refuge is not high enough on the priority list to get from the Nottingham social security office a grant for a bed, a table and some other furniture. Had she lived in nearby Alfreton, she could have received those payments. Such are the differences in priorities from one office to another.
  Meanwhile, people surviving on income support are among those who are being squeezed hardest by increases in water, electricity and gas charges. Public utilities were privatised, in a "money no object" exercise, by the selfsame Conservative Government. The present Government can blow billions of pounds of North sea oil revenue, yet there are 130,000 individuals on transitional additions-130,000 people who have not had an increase in income support for three years.
  Others who will judge for themselves the generosity of the uprating include the rising numbers of people being made redundant as a major recession steamrolls them. A few of the severely disabled are assisted by the independent living fund, which the Conservative Government still refuse to put on a statutory footing, despite the obvious and chronic demand.
  I am very proud to say that the independent living fund is in my constituency. The officers who serve it do a magnificent job—a job of which the Secretary of State and his team and, indeed, the rest of us should be proud. None the less, it is a scheme created to put a problem—as the Government see it, a public expenditure problem—at arm's length. Next, I understand, there may be an agency, or the problem may be referred to local authorities. This is a way of sweeping a difficult situation under the carpet.
  The creation of a social security benefits agency is another case in point. When Members of Parliament table questions about matters within the competence of that agency, the answers will not be printed in Hansard for the benefit of all Members, who might then ask questions relating to the benefits of people in their constituencies. Members making such inquiries will receive letters from the chief executive of the agency, and if other Members wish to see those letters, they will have to go to the Library. That undermines what little democracy and accountability this House has in respect of social security matters.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: What my hon. Friend is describing is a broken promise. At meetings of the Select Committee on Social Security, it was made absolutely clear that the opportunities to question Ministers about the internal workings of the Departments would be undiminished.
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend has made a very pertinent point. I hope that, even at this stage, the Secretary of State will reconsider the way in which social security matters within the realm of the benefits agency might be brought before this House. This is a central point of parliamentary accountability.
  I should like to answer a query about the amount of money spent on state pensions. We can all bandy statistics. This is an area in which that happens all the time. Central
  1022
  to our commitment to social security expenditure must be the principle that those people who, in some way, are cared for out of social security expenditure should share in the prosperity of the nation. So far as I am concerned, the most startling statistic in this area is the reduction in expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product. Between 1984–85 and 1989–90, expenditure fell from 12·2 per cent. to 10·3 per cent. That is a very significant and sad statistic. Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on it.·
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: What would the Labour party do?
  Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman asks what we shall do. I do not want to stray too far from my brief, but I am pleased, in reply to a question from a sedentary position, to say that the hon. Gentleman will be made very well aware of our intentions. I do not know whether he has read the Labour party's documents. If not, I shall be very glad to send him copies. We shall, of course, insist on an immediate increase of £5 a week in the pensions of single people. That £5 will be over and above the increase that will be made in April. In the case of a married couple, the increase will be £8. Thereafter, there will be immediate linkage to earnings or inflation, whichever is the higher.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: How much will it cost?
  Mr. Allen: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), also from a sedentary position, asks how much it will cost. I shall gladly give him figures provided by his own Government. The pension rise will cost £2·3 billion, and the increase in child benefit will cost £0·75 billion. I make this commitment. Indeed, it is in the Labour party documents for all to see. [Interruption.] There is no hidden agenda here. Child benefit will be restored to the level of 1979. In other words, we are prepared to invest in children and in the future of this nation.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the Labour party committed to restoring child benefit to the record level of 1983, or does it consider the lower level of 1979 as the limit? Is it committed to expenditure in any other areas? What proportion of the total increase in public spending promised by the Labour party is made up of increases in child benefit? Is it 100, 50, or 30 per cent. of additional spending?
  Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman has a cheek. He was a member of a Government who have presided over a reduction in child benefit during the past four or five years. I shall say slowly, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, that the next Labour Government will return child benefit to its value when Labour was last in office. That would mean a very much higher level—£2·30 higher than it is under this Government, in which the hon. Gentleman served for many years.
  I must make it clear that, much as I would be pleased to make commitments about spending in other areas, the hon. Gentleman must know that no additional commitments can be undertaken until such are considered appropriate in the light of economic developments and economic growth [Interruption.]. Hon. Members must allow me to finish my remarks. I should love to answer questions on health, but unfortunately my remit does not stretch that far, just yet.

  1023
  There can be little doubt that, as the election comes closer, the Prime Minister is seeing in his private opinion polls confirmation that the Conservative myth that being the party of the family is buried under an incontrovertible mountain of payment hooks. In view of the Prime Minister's style, I guarantee that behind the grin there will be more social security fixes, more opportunist gifts, a little Budget sweetener here and a little panic response there. The day of reckoning is coming sooner than Conservative Members think. For those dependent upon pensions and benefits, that day cannot come soon enough.
  6.41 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) came towards the end of his speech, we had some insight into the scale of commitments that the Labour party will offer in its next election manifesto. It may wrap the manifesto in weasel words, but today we have had a commitment on pensioners which appears to amount to some £3 billion. In Committee on the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Bill, we discussed a variety of Labour amendments that would have amounted to a further £3 billion expenditure. There is also another range of commitments on child support.
  Every time I face the Labour party across the Floor of the House, I am reminded of the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about the last Labour Government promising the earth and delivering the International Monetary Fund. I am afraid that that is exactly the position in which any future Labour Government—remote though that possibility may be—will very quickly find themselves.
  Today, we are discussing a series of orders, the most important being the uprating order, which provides additional resources of £5 billion for the social security system. The Labour party may say that it is possible to have generous increases across the board, but our approach to social security is to protect the generality of people in receipt of social security benefit from the impact of price increases. Within that overall approach, we wish to ensure that additional help goes to the most vulnerable groups in our society. I should like to refer briefly to each of those groups.
  We must, of course, consider the position of pensioners in our society. Any society owes a debt to those who have spent their lives working in the community, for society, and who then look to the state and to the companies which employed them to look after them in their retirement. As was said earlier, the real standard of living of pensioners as a whole has increased dramatically in recent years. Since 1979, it has risen by 31 per cent. in real terms compared with a 3 per cent. increase under the last Labour Government. Indeed, pensioners' incomes have risen twice as fast as the incomes of the remainder of the population.
  I know that it is part of the Labour party's attitude of mind that it should think only about the benefits that people receive from the state. We believe that we should consider pensioners' standards of living as they are affected both by their occupational pensions and by the savings that they have accumulated during their working lives, as well as in the context of state benefits. As I said, there has been a 31 per cent. increase in pensioners'
  1024
  standards of living since we took office in 1979, compared with a 3 per cent. increase under the last Labour Government.
  I recognise, as any hon. Member recognises, that I am referring to the general position, and that it disguises the fact that some people have had increases in their standards of living greater then 31 per cent., while others have had a lesser increase. We can all identify with the pensioner who has lost out.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Because of the poll tax.
  Mr. Scott: I am not disguising any facts. There are a number of pensioners whose savings were destroyed by inflation during the 1970s. Those people spent most of their working lives at a time when occupational pensions were not so widespread or so generous as they are today. Many working careers were interrupted by the second world war. Our approach, over successive years, has been to give additional help to poorer pensioners. We have provided millions of pounds in additional help for them——
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What about the poll tax?
  Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he should stand up. I would happily give way to him.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister tell the House about the cost of the poll tax to pensioners? Is it not 10 to 15 per cent. of their income? Even pensioners on low incomes have had to suffer that sort of increase.
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The poorer pensioners benefit from community charge rebate and from various other help that we have given to those paying the community charge. That help was extended recently. I recognise that there is a group of poorer pensioners, and we have concentrated help on their specific needs rather than making the sort of grandiose promises made by the Opposition.
  Mr. John Battle: I regret that I have not been able to contribute to the debate. The Secretary of State made great play of the fact that housing costs were no longer included when working out the uprating statement. The difficulty is that the housing costs element of the retail prices index includes other crucial items such as the poll tax and water rates. People must pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of their poll tax, and must also find the money to pay rising water rates. Is it not true that the uprating of means-tested income support takes no account of those vital increases?
  Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman would use his influence with some of the council leaders in socialist authorities to hold down the level of community charge, he might be making a sensible contribution to the debate.
  In winding up the debate, I seek not to wind up Opposition Members, but to make a serious contribution. I wish to identify groups of people in our society who need some sensible additional help in sustaining their living standards. I want to mention one group that is especially close to my heart, and comes within my job description, and that is disabled people. Again, during our time in office we have more than doubled the provisions for the long-term sick and disabled. We are now spending more

  1025
  than £10 billion on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled—an increase in real terms of £5·6 billion since we took office. It is easy to talk in such global terms——
  Mr. Allen: And to be inaccurate.
  Mr. Scott: I am being both precise and accurate. We are talking about the impact on the living standards of the disabled and about the spread of benefits to more and more disabled people during the period of this Government.
  Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware of the difference between an increase in benefits and an increase in the take-up of benefits?
  Mr. Scott: That is precisely the point that I was making when the hon. Gentleman sought to intervene. Surely he welcomes as much as I do the fact that many more disabled people are now receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Those people did not become disabled under this Government; they were there under the Labour Government. They were not receiving the benefit then, but they are now.
  Despite the smirk on the face of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) I hope that he will recognise that that is a real point. The last time he was at the Dispatch Box he criticised me in a rather snide way for "marketing" benefits. Of course we want to do that. We want to make people aware of the benefits to which they are entitled and ensure that they take them up. We will go on marketing both our existing benefits and the new ones that will come into operation in April next year in order to ensure that they go to the people who need them.
  Mr. Allen: I, too, would criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I do not believe that the Minister is marketing some benefits as well as he could. Were he to do so, the Financial Secretary and the Chief Secretary would come down on him like a ton of bricks because of the financial implications. Perhaps he will market family credit a little more effectively.
  Mr. Scott: With the greatest possible respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is comparatively new to the subject—I am not being patronising—he knows that this area is demand-led. If people apply, they receive the benefit. It is nothing to do with the Chief Secretary. People get the benefits for which they apply and for which they are entitled. We have seen a dramatic increase in the take-up of benefits and we shall go on seeking to ensure that that continues.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister explain why one benefit has been taken away from disabled people—the reduced earnings allowance? Most disabled people become disabled as a result of accidents at work. In areas such as mine, where there is mining and heavy engineering, a considerable number of people who were once entitled to that benefit can no longer claim it. Yet they originally received it in recognition of the fact that they had become disabled because of their activities in industry, either as a result of an accident or because of the environment in which they worked. The Government have abolished that allowance.
  Mr. Scott: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Last year, I took through the House the Bill that made that change in the benefit system. It is increasingly right that at this time we should concentrate state help on those people who are disabled early in life, perhaps congenitally or as a result of some accident early in life, and who do not have the opportunity to build up entitlements to occupational pensions, compensation from their employers or in other ways. Philosophically that is right. It would be difficult, even for the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is muttering on the Front Bench, to disagree with that as a principle.
  Mr. McCartney rose——
  Mr. Scott: I do not want to get bogged down. I am trying to answer the debate.
  Mr. McCartney: To take that to its logical conclusion, what does the Minister say about the young 21-year-old who has an arm amputated and can no longer claim reduced earnings allowance? There are many such specific cases. Thousands occur in industry each year. There is no reason for withdrawing that important benefit from the industrially disabled, other than to reduce public expenditure.
  Mr. Scott: What we have done, in essence, is to alter the priorities within the provision for disabled people while increasing it substantially. I do not want to weary the House with the figures. The philosophical approach that I have sought to outline would need widespread approval.
  We are concerned too about the needs of low income families and families generally. We are anxious to look at the whole pattern of provision in that area and if hon. Members would like to contact my right hon. Friend or myself and come forward with ideas for improving the pattern of family support as it presently exists, we would be only too happy to listen to them.
  The social fund has proved to be an effective, fair and flexible way of meeting needs that are outwith the normal scope of the social security system. I do not disguise from the House my feeling that that is a difficult area. The single payment system did not work particularly well. It was capricious in the extreme. It was doubling in cost every two years, I think, and it was becoming unsustainable. The social fund has proved a sensible way of providing grants and loans to people with exceptional needs at exceptional times while keeping the pattern of expenditure under sensible control. It is straightforward and it is becoming understood by claimants, and I believe that it works in an effective manner.
  Mr. Allen: The Minister will be aware of the recent survey conducted by the National Audit Office which showed that one quarter of income support claimants did not know what the social fund was. Once again, wearing his marketing hat, perhaps he could do something about that.
  Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman looked back to the pattern of single payments and the geographical and social spread of take-up under that, he would see that there was even less understanding of the single payment scheme than there is now of the social fund. There is an increasing awareness of the social fund and its capacity to help.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to The Independent today

  1027
  where it says that there were 2,347 deaths during the latest spell of sub-zero temperatures.—[Interruption.] Am I entitled to ask a question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or are the hooligans on the Tory Benches determined that the issue will not be raised? The social fund has been extremely unhelpful when it comes to hypothermia. What does he intend to do about that?
  Mr. Scott: I think that the press report to which the hon. Gentleman was referring was mentioned earlier. The Government have responded flexibly and in a commonsense manner to the last period of excessive hard weather in Britain.
  Mr. Battle: Are we to get a statement every time it snows?
  Mr. Scott: If necessary. If we have a period of general and excessively cold weather, it is sensible for the Government to respond to that in a flexible and common sense manner. We have done it twice already. I admire and respect the hon. Gentleman considerably, but if we had stuck rigidly to the rules, he would have been criticising me. The fact that we responded in a flexible and sensible manner should be a matter of congratulation rather than criticism.
  The hon. Gentleman made some complimentary remarks about the independent living fund. In Committee, he has been trying to persuade me to turn that into a completely regulated system removing all the flexibility, all the attention to the individual needs of the claimants judged by social workers in order to produce a package of care. That would not and could not work.
  Even the Labour party knows that it is not possible to direct more help to the most vulnerable groups in society while promising vast increases in the generality of provision within the social security system. There are many needs in our society, but it is much better to be able to meet them by identifying particular groups and concentrating help on them.
  Social spending today is 40 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. Most of that growth is the result of the general increases that have protected people against the impact of price increases. Many of them have come about also because of our ability to concentrate help on those most in need. The Government have shown themselves to be caring, and concerned with the needs of the most vulnerable in our society and have produced substantial extra resources to look after them—no lollipops, but real extra money for those who need help most.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

  STATUTORY SICK PAY
  It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [22 February], to put successively the Questions on the remaining motions.
  Motion made and Question put,
  That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 191.

  Division No. 83]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Allason, Rupert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Arbuthnot, James

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Ashby, David

  Curry, David

  Atkins, Robert

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

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Day, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Devlin, Tim

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dicks, Terry

  Bendall, Vivian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Dover, Den

  Benyon, W.

  Dunn, Bob

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Eggar, Tim

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bowis, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bright, Graham

  Freeman, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

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

  Gale, Roger

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gill, Christopher

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gorst, John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Gregory, Conal

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ground, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Churchill, Mr

  Hague, William

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hanley, Jeremy

  1029

  Hannam, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hill, James

  Pawsey, James

  Holt, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Price, Sir David

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Irvine, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Janman, Tim

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rost, Peter

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shersby, Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Knox, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Squire, Robin

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Madel, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Maples, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marland, Paul

  Thorne, Neil

  Marlow, Tony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mates, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tracey, Richard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tredinnick, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Trippier, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Viggers, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Walden, George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Mudd, David

  Waller, Gary

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  1030

  Watts, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Tom Sackville

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  George, Bruce

  Alton, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Gordon, Mildred

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gould, Bryan

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Graham, Thomas

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Battle, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Beckett, Margaret

  Haynes, Frank

  Beggs, Roy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Bell, Stuart

  Henderson, Doug

  Bellotti, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Benton, Joseph

  Home Robertson, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Janner, Greville

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Kilfedder, James

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lamond, James

  Cartwright, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Leighton, Ron

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lewis, Terry

  Clay, Bob

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clelland, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  McAllion, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Crowther, Stan

  McCartney, Ian

  Cryer, Bob

  McCrea, Rev William

  Cummings, John

  McFall, John

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McKelvey, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dobson, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Madden, Max

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Maginnis, Ken

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Eadie, Alexander

  Marek, Dr John

  Eastham, Ken

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Maxton, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Meale, Alan

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michael, Alun

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Fisher, Mark

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Flynn, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fraser, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Murphy, Paul

  1031

  Nellist, Dave

  Snape, Peter

  O'Brien, William

  Soley, Clive

  O'Hara, Edward

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Strang, Gavin

  Patchett, Terry

  Straw, Jack

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dennis

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Vaz, Keith

  Radice, Giles

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Redmond, Martin

  Wallace, James

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Reid, Dr John

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Richardson, Jo

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Rogers, Allan

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carmthen)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

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

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Mr. Jack Thompson.

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

  Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request from the Government Front Bench for a statement to be made about the current position in the Gulf? You may be aware that developments in the past few hours suggest—I use the word advisedly—that the ingredients for a ceasefire may now be available. This is clearly a matter of the greatest interest to the House, and the whole House would expect the Government to make a statement at the earliest opportunity about a development of such significance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am not aware of any requests for a statement, but I am sure that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said will have been heard by those on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to know whether the Bill is valid. I do not wish to question the Chair, but you will recall the same question being asked in relation to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Despite its lengthy consideration in Committee and the fact that no amendment was allowed to be made to it, when that Bill went to the other place it was found to be defective, and to contain an erroneous date. Can we have an assurance that this Bill is valid, has been vetted and is perfectly in order and that, if that is not the case, it will be slung out?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is in order. I hope that we can now get on with the Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard what you said, but may I refer you to what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mar. Knapman) said when he introduced the Bill on 14 January? He said:
  "Those works will serve generating stations being built under powers already granted by the Secretary of State for Energy."—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 667.]
  It is widely reported that the Government are on a three-line Whip to support the Bill. How can it he described as a private Member's Bill when it is intended to give two power stations enabling powers that, according to the hon. Member for Stroud, have already been granted by the Secretary of State? Surely this is a Government Bill and, if there is a three-line Whip on it tonight, as there was on another Bill last week, it cannot qualify under the private procedure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman means, of course, a private Bill, not a private Member's Bill. His point would be entirely in order if made during the Second Reading debate.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Despite what has just been said, the detail of the Bill was substantially discussed at the time of the revival

  1033
  motion on 14 January. If the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) had quoted me a little more extensively, he would have come up with the answer to his question.
  The Bill is extremely mundane, dull and technical, so it is entirely appropriate that the dullest grey Member, in the dullest grey suit should put across the message. Indeed, he is ideal. In the debate on the revival motion I said that National Power plc and PowerGen plc are already building the power stations that are the subject of tonight's debate. No matter what fuel is used, water will be required for cooling purposes.
  Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the building of the power stations gone ahead without approval for the measures in this Bill? Is that not a contempt of this House? If one of our constituents was to build an extension to his house without the proper approvals, I am sure civil servants would tell him to take it down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can make his points in the debate. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for me to remind the House that the Bill does not deal with the building of generating stations. It deals with auxiliary works and, as a consequence, it is comparatively narrow.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have given a ruling which to some extent may circumscribe our debate. In the context of the proposition that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is about to advance, we shall consider the generation of power by gas. That has implications for this country and for the European Community. I hope that I have not misinterpreted you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that you will not circumscribe the debate. After all, we are discussing the implementation of our power generation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill does not deal with power stations. It deals with auxiliary works. I do not want to restrict unduly the scope of the debate on a private Bill. Let us see how we get on.
  Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friends and I had high hopes that Opposition Members would have read the Bill since we debated the revival motion.
  Mr. Redmond: Before the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) was interrupted by those points of order, did he say that this simple and mundane Bill related to constructing lagoons? Does it deal with extracting water into lagoons?
  Mr. Knapman: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's last sentence.
  Mr. Redmond: I assume that the hon. Gentleman will read from a prepared speech. Perhaps he could go back a few sentences because I was distracted earlier and missed his opening comments. I think that he mentioned the word "lagoons".
  Mr. Knapman: I may well have been ad libbing. That might surprise hon. Members. I described the Bill as mundane and technical. Opposition Members may disagree because they think that it deals with the building of power stations. It does not.
  1034
  The Bill is required for the construction of the necessary cooling water works and, in that case, only to overcome certain prohibitions in the Humberside Conservancy Act 1905, which no doubt Opposition Members have read with care. The Bill does not seek to circumvent any planning permission procedures. The power station developments already have consent and deemed planning permission after full local consultation.
  We look forward to hearing from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
  Mr. James Pawsey: We look forward to his words of wisdom.
  Mr. Knapman: Indeed, and we appreciated his wisdom during the debate on the revival motion.
  The objections to the Bill are rather sad.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Would my hon. Friend care to rephrase that? There are no objections to the Bill because there were no petitions against it. There are no objections from my constituents in the area where the power station is to be built and there is no objection from the Labour-controlled Humberside county council.
  Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend has made a very good point and the way in which he has looked after the interests of his constituents contrasts starkly——
  Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was one petition against the Bill, but it was withdrawn. Is the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) suggesting that hon. Members cannot raise objections to private Bills?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I suspect that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will catch my eye later and it would be in order to make that point then.
  Mr. Knapman: We fully understand, particularly at this time of political consensus, why Opposition Members have to say what they say, but we believe that it is a little sad that hon. Members have to act as delegates rather than representatives. We understand the reasons for the objections, but the Bill has nothing to do with coal. It deals simply with inlet and outlet pipes on the River Humber.
  Mr. Hood: There was one objection. Who objected and why was the objection withdrawn?
  Mr. Knapman: I understand that the Coalfield Communities Campaign objected on the general principle of how the proposal would affect coalfield communities, but it withdrew the objection. It realised, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, that the Bill has nothing to do with coal.
  By using the blocking motion as a field on which to fight this mother of all legislative battles, the Opposition are on thin ground. Whenever an issue involves competition, privatisation or capitalism, the Opposition erect a mental Maginot line. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) recently said that the Labour party must learn to run capitalism better than the Conservatives. That news does not seem to have percolated through to the Opposition Members who are present tonight.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: What my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) advocated will not be too difficult in view of the state of the economy under this Government.
  Mr. Knapman: The Leader of the Opposition will not have an opportunity to put his ideas into practice. If, however, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) wants to make a start in that direction, he should support the Bill.
  The hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) objected to the Bill in the House. That did not do them credit, because they have caused much delay and a great deal of expense. What is the point of that?
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is, like me, an official of the all-party conservation committee. The main reason for my view of the matter is that it is scandalously unwise to use our relatively limited reserves of gas for steam raising when, in only a few years or generations, we will bitterly regret that waste of a prime resource.
  Mr. Knapman: I understand that the power stations use roughly 0·1 per cent. of our proven gas reserves annually.
  I wonder why the hon. Member for Wentworth does not take account of the views of the Labour-controlled county council. There have been wide consultations on the Bill. Most recently, the Central Electricity Generating Board, acting on behalf of National Power and PowerGen, sent details of the Bill to 32 interested parties. One was Glanford borough council, which I should have thought might have known what was needed in the area. It replied to the Central Electricity Generating Board on 11 December 1988, saying:
  "Further to my letter dated 16 November 1989 I am now able to inform you that on 7 December the Borough Council's Planning Committee resolved that Glanford wishes to raise no objections to the proposals contained in the Bill."
  Then there is the Humberside county council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has already mentioned. It is Labour-controlled and it has no objection to the Bill. It does not seem to share the Opposition's views. At the time of the revival motion, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said that people would not be aware of what is going on—unaware, presumably, that he was criticising the county council and the borough council, which, in any case, are Labour-controlled. I am sure that he would not wish to criticise his colleagues in such numbers.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Knapman: Many hon. Members wish to speak. However, I shall give way once more.
  Mr. Barnes: There is also the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) did a service in tabling a blocking motion because it enables the Bill to be discussed fully and properly. It provides an opportunity to present in great detail what the hon. Gentleman regards as the fantastic benefits of the Bill. I wait for that to be done so that my colleagues and I can begin to take on board the arguments for the Bill. We do not have to accept Bills on the nod. As has been said, specific arguments must be examined by the whole House. This Bill was never in front of any council.
  Mr. Knapman: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this matter. He was probably not present at the time of the revival motion.
  Mr. Barnes: I was here then. I did not speak, but the same point was made against my tabling a blocking motion. I remember that.
  Mr. Knapman: We would have greatly looked forward to the hon. Gentleman staying in the Chamber for longer during the debate on the revival motion. In view of all the interest that has been expressed, I wonder why local constituencies that are represented by the Labour party are not taking a more active interest in the matter. Where, for instance, is the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)? Is he representing the views of his constituents? What are his views? Do some people believe that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe agrees with the Humberside county council, which is controlled by Labour, or does he agree with his hon. Friends that the Bill should be defeated? We do not know because he is not here.
  Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am asking you for some help. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is referring to Opposition Members having no interest in the matter and wanting to interfere in what he thinks is a local county council matter. Am I correct in asking him to provide the House with information about why he sponsors the Bill? Is he being paid for sponsoring it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would not be right for me to ask the hon. Gentleman for information but, if he would like to provide it, it would be in order for him to do so.
  Mr. Knapman: I have an apology to make. I should have disclosed an interest. The hon. Gentleman asked me about this matter during the debate on the revival motion. I purchased 150 shares in the London electricity distribution company. I might be due for a profit, if I sell them tomorrow, of about £100, but the expenses might outweigh the profit. I am trying not to let that prospect colour my judgment too strongly. What I said about the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe also applies to the hon. Member for Great Grimbsy (Mr. Mitchell), whose constituency can be only two or three miles away from that of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I have nothing but the most superb relations with the—Labour—hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), both of whom are excellent constituency Members of Parliament. The fact that they are not here and have not signed the blocking motion demonstrates exactly what my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, it is interesting that the only Humberside Members of Parliament present are my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) and me.
  Mr. Knapman: I assure my hon. Friend that I am not trying to do anything to upset the good relations between him and his Labour neighbours. However, the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe and for Great Grimsby have a constituency interest, because many of their constituents work in the power stations that are now being constructed or will have jobs when they are

  1037
  constructed. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is not here. He is not usually short of words, but we realise that he may have other commitments.
  The borough and county councils, negotiated with the parish councils, about 29 other bodies were consulted, and not one has any objection. It is true that, as a result of consultations, a number of amendments were made, but they were in the form of protective clauses for third parties.
  The site was chosen for various reasons, including the fact that it had previously been shown to be suitable for power station development. That has been true since the Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act 1972, not least because the site lies within an area designated in the Humberside structure plan as an estuary-related industrial area, but there are other obvious reasons why it should be a suitable site. It is an existing area of industrial development. The stations can be built without significant environmental effect. The area is obviously well located in relation to North sea gas. It is suitably located for connection to the national grid system. Above all—this is the crux of the matter—it is close to a source of cooling water. It is obvious that the resources of the River Humber estuary make it the most suitable, convenient and economic source of cooling water for the two power stations.
  Hon. Members will know that the 1972 Act specified only one intake and only one outfall, but the number of conduits in each intake and each outfall were unspecified. If only one pipe had been constructed, the diameter of each would have been about 3 m or 4 m. Under this Bill, the pipes would have to be between only 0·6 m to 1 m in diameter.
  In the 1972 Act, there was a direct cooled system. The heat was rejected directly to a body of water. In an indirect system, such as the one proposed in the Bill, heat is rejected to the atmosphere by evaporative cooling in the cooling towers, and that is required only to replace that which is lost by evaporation and to prevent the concentration of dissolved salts. It is obvious that a great deal less water is required. Under the Bill, the longest specified pipe is only 390 m, and the longest outfall is 290 m long. Those figures are little more than half the length of the pipes that were envisaged in the earlier Act. As a result, none of the proposed cooling water pipes will extend beyond the jetty line or into the main navigable channels.
  In response to repeated requests from Opposition Members, I shall now give more detail about the number of works requested under the Killingholme Bill. The Bill provides for six sets of intakes and outfalls, although only two sets are presently required. Subsequent design alterations mean that PowerGen and National Power do not need all the sets at present, although the site is large enough to accommodate further developments. To develop the full potential of the site, both companies may require extra cooling water pipes. The Bill will enable that to be realised without wasting more valuable parliamentary time.
  From the environmental point of view, which weighs heavily with my hon. Friends, the pipes will be buried in the bed of the River Humber so that the crown of the pipe is at least 2 m below the existing river bed level. Although the final construction details are to be confirmed by the companies' turnkey contractors, one possible method is to
  1038
  dredge a trench in the Humber, join the whole length of pipe on the land, and float it out into the river. An alternative method of installation would be to join several lengths of pipes on land and attach them to a frame. The Bill, the substance of which has already been before the House, merely seeks renewed approval for pipes to be laid in the Humber estuary.
  I hope that the House will feel able to grant the Bill its Second Reading so that National Power and PowerGen can continue with their construction programme without any further unnecessary and costly delay.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am privileged to have the opportunity of saying a few words in this debate. Although I recognise that it is a narrow debate and I shall try to respect that fact, I am sure that you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when such a Bill will have a major effect on another industry and on thousands of jobs, debate on it should allow hon. Members to express their fears about the distress that it may cause to that other industry and to the many thousands of people who work in it.
  Clause 29 refers to protection for the British Coal Corporation. That seems ironic, given the fact that the past few years—and even more recently—have seen the devastation of British Coal. It is worth noting that National Power and Associated British Ports, which are mentioned at length in the Bill, have recently become happy bedfellows.
  It is right that the Bill should receive the strictest scrutiny, because the recent history of Associated British Ports leads one to demand such scrutiny. When the Associated British Ports Bill was going through the House, sponsored by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is now busy chatting to the Whip, both the Committee and the House were deliberately deceived. Indeed, without that deceit, the Bill would never have got through the House.
  At the time, two Bills—those relating to the Immingham and the Killingholme ports—were being considered by opposed Private Bill Committees. The Committee requested that the Killingholme Bill should be amended to prevent the company from being sold in less than 10 years. Because that was not acceptable to the company, the Bill did not see the light of day again. However, during the debate on the Immingham Bill, no such assurance was given, and the Bill passed through the House. The Committee issued a special report, which hon. Members will no doubt remember, highlighting the fact that the Bill was acceptable to the Committee only if the Government took action to protect British Coal and the jobs there. The Government have never taken any such action.
  Under this Bill, the two power stations will be run on gas. That is a further nail in the coffin of this country's coal industry. As a result of the Immingham Bill, Associated British Ports will now be the happy bedfellow of National Power and PowerGen, because they are to take over 80 per cent. of the company that has been set up to equip and run operations at the port. That fact was never mentioned during the Committee's deliberations.
  Incidentally, it was never mentioned in the many debates on these matters in the House by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Did he

  1039
  know?"] Of course he knew. I am not suggesting for one moment that, at any stage during the Committee's deliberations, National Power and PowerGen had any association with Associated British Ports. However, I am accusing Associated British Ports, the sponsor of the legislation and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, of a complete con and a deceit. I repeat that the House was deceived. Without such deceit, the Bill would never have seen the light of day.
  During those deliberations, assurances were given by no less a person than Sir Frank Layfield that the major improvements to the port at Immingham
  "were not designed specifically in any sense of the word for coal purposes. They depend mainly upon general industrial and other consumers' current needs and the need to eliminate present existing wasteful difficulties and practices. If passed it will have that effect in our submission."
  However, that is not the case now——
  Mr. Allen McKay: It never was.
  Mr. Lofthouse: As my hon. Friend says, it never was.
  The port has been erected and extended purely and simply to allow foreign coal to be imported. That has been done on behalf of National Power, which, according to Mr. John Baker, is to import 50 per cent. of its coal after 1993. The Bill, however, will allow the building of two gas generating plants—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter, despite the smirks on the faces of some Conservative Members.
  I am pleased that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) is now in his place. In the past week, the Select Committee has taken evidence from expert witnesses, one of whom told us that National Power is negotiating not only to import foreign coal—we heard that evidence from Shell, with which National Power is already negotiating—but, if the witness is corrct, to purchase foreign coal mines.
  What a ridiculous situation when there have been another four, five or six pit closures in recent weeks, including one at Allerton Bywater. About 500 of the 800 men who work there live in my constituency. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is not in his place, because Allerton Bywater is in his constituency, and I should have thought that he would be here to defend it.
  Mr. Hardy: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that, during Energy questions on Monday, Conservative Members boasted about the enormous sums of money that had been invested in the coal industry during the lifetime of this Government. Have they no thought for the public money that they have invested when they encourage actions that render the investment useless?
  Mr. Lofthouse: I share my hon. Friend's views.
  The Bill must be scrutinised as thoroughly as possible, I do not trust anything that Associated British Ports has got its fingers in. As I have already said, National Power, PowerGen and Associated British Ports look as if they have a cosy little arrangement. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that National Power and PowerGen will welcome British Coal being run down to a size—which I have forecast in the past few months—of about 10,000 men and 10 to 12 pits by the mid-1990s. They will gladly
  1040
  get their greedy hands on those pits, if, God forbid, the Government get back into power and the coal mining industry is privatised.
  Any Conservative Member who supports the Bill supports a measure which encourages the burning of gas at the expense of British coal and sterilises millions and millions of tonnes of coal in Britain—millions of tonnes of natural energy within our own shores. Yet they know full well that, in less than a decade, we shall not be able to meet the demands of power generators in Britain. They will allow us to become completely dependent on our foreign competitors to supply our main source of energy once the gas is no longer there and the oil is not always there any more. Yet hon. Members know that, once a mine is closed and the coal is sterilised, one can never return and mine the coal.
  It is nothing short of criminal. The Bill will help to make us dependent for our energy supplies. In my view, National Power and PowerGen are making it clear that they have no great concern for the interests of Britain. All they are interested in is the commercial side of their operation, short-term fluctuations and a short-term buck at the expense of long-term supplies. The Bill goes some way towards helping them to do that.
  It is fairly obvious that our pleadings and warnings over many years about the national supply of energy have fallen on deaf ears. How long can it go on before Conservative Members realise what is happening? There cannot be any other reason for running down the British coal industry than Tory dogma. There is no logic in the arguments. One cannot make an economic argument in the medium term, although it can be done for the short term. The only reason is that, throughout recent years and especially since 1984, the Government have been so blinded by political dogma that they cannot see anything beyond their blinkered desire to close down British mines.
  Britain will eventually pay the penalty for the Government's stupid policies. I assume that the Bill will be accepted tonight. I hope that the Opposed Private Bill Committee will make sure, in view of the cosy arrangements between National Power and PowerGen and Associated British Ports, that guarantees are written into the Bill for British Coal, which is referred to in the Bill. I hope that the deceit which occurred after the Associated British Ports Bill passed through the House will not be repeated. So far, no one has denied or disproved that that deceit took place.
  I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Rochford, the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee. or the Chairman of the Opposed Private Bill Committee on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. But the hon. Member for Rochford must think privately that he was in some way conned when he chaired that important Committee, in which he had to give the casting vote time and time again. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I believe that, when he considers the evidence given to him, he must think about the decisions that he made on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and that he was conned. I wonder what he would do now if he were chairing the Committee and had in his possession the information that we have now.
  My view—I do not expect the hon. Member for Rochford to comment on it—is that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill would not have passed through the House or even seen the light of day. I hope that the Bill

  1041
  before the House today will be scrutinised to the highest degree before the Committee and the House allows it to proceed.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has sincere, deeply held views in support of the coal industry. He has done so for many years. He knows that I have always been most supportive of the coal industry in the Energy Select Committee, on which we both serve. I spent many of my early years in industry in an associated company within the coal-fired power station industry.
  There is no doubt that since the miners' strike the coal industry has responded tremendously well, increasing its productivity by about 87 per cent. The future of that industry lies to a great extent within its own hands. The men on the coal face are responding well. They will always have a strong place in our nation and will always have my continued support. Having said that, we must think about continuity and security of supply. We must think about options.
  Opposition Members who feel like voting against this Bill may not by so doing put first the interests of the north-east, and certainly those of the whole country, remembering the national grid. Indeed, they may not put first the interests of their own families and of industrial companies in their constituencies. Whatever else happens, we have a responsibility in Britain to keep the lights burning and the factories running. The only way in which we can be certain of doing that is by having a good mix of forms of power stations, so that we can always draw our power generation from sources which are not under threat.
  Mr. Allen McKay: It appears that the difference between the hon. Gentleman's views and our views is narrow. He talks about a mix. The Opposition have always talked about a mix of energy supplies. But we have talked about a national mix—not a market mix, which is entirely different. There should be a national energy policy which takes into account the whole system of energy supplies in Britain and eliminates current waste.
  Mr. Dickens: That is a different matter altogether. I am not a Minister, so I cannot deliver a national energy policy, but there is some merit in what the hon. Gentleman says.
  We must remember that we generate power by natural gas and by coal. and perhaps later by coal gasification. We must consider oil and nuclear energy. Unfortunately, wind, wave and solar energy are not sufficiently advanced to make any great impact on our supply of power.
  The Bill concentrates on putting water pipes for cooling purposes into the river Humber. The battle about whether there should be a power station is long past. Permission has been given. If Opposition Members seek to frustrate the Bill, they will simply deny the power stations the cooling water they need, and they will do so merely in an attempt to fight their corner for the coal industry. It is a bogus argument in that sense, because the battle has been won for two gas cycle turbine generators to be built, one for PowerGen and one for National Power. All that we are
  1042
  discussing is whether we should allow water pipes to pass into the River Humber to take a small amount of water for cooling purposes.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any studies on taking water out of the Humber, putting it through the generating plants as cooling water and returning it to the Humber? There are two power stations in my constituency, both coastal, one at the northern end and one at the southern. It is said that significant ecological changes are taking place in the North sea because of the discharge of water from those power stations. Because of the movement of water in an estuary, I imagine that the effect would be more significant in this instance than in the North sea.
  Mr. Dickens: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point, and I will deal with it later.
  As to the type of water extraction and discharges in the power stations to which I have referred, the extractions and discharges required for cooling would be on a significantly smaller scale than those already taking place at coastal and estuary major power station sites, such as those to which the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) has referred.
  Cooling is required at power stations to condense steam which has been exhausted from steam turbines at low pressures. The cooling may be direct or indirect. For direct cooling, water is extracted from the source of cooling water, passed through condensers and returned to the source of the water. For indirect cooling, the water passing through the condensers is cooled by air, using cooling towers, and the same water is recirculated. Only the water which has evaporated in the cooling towers and the small quantity of purge water need to be replaced. Purge water is water taken from a recirculating cooling system and returned to the river in order to control the concentration of materials in the water. Normally, direct cooling would be used, but at Killingholme the distance from the water makes the capital cost of indirect cooling systems less than that of direct systems.
  Combined cycle gas turbine power stations generate only one third of their electricity from the use of steam in steam turbines. The other two thirds is produced by generators driven directly from the gas turbines. In comparison, 100 per cent. of the electricity generation is from steam turbines in coal, oil or nuclear power stations.
  The Killingholme development will use indirect cooling systems. The combination of indirect cooling and combined cycle gas turbine technology means that the requirements for cooling water are significantly reduced. In fact, it requires only 5 per cent. of that for direct cooling at existing power stations, like Fawley, Kingsnorth or Sizewell, per unit of electricity generated. That is important.
  On the environmental aspects, the aspects of effluent discharges from power station cooling systems that require consideration are chlorine and temperature. There is no legislation relating to these two effluents since they are regulated by the National Rivers Authority in considering the term of the discharge licence.
  Some form of biocide is usually necessary in cooling water circuits to deter the settlement and growth of

  1043
  organisms, such as barnacles and mussels, and to control algae, slimes and bacteria. At present, chlorine is used in one form or another.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: The hon. Gentleman is getting very technical. I would appreciate it if he could help the poor lay Opposition Members. Will he explain the process involved with biocides, what they do and how they work?
  Mr. Dickens: I will indeed—I shall be coming to that soon.
  Since chlorine has been used for many years, its use is very well understood, except on the Labour Benches. It has the best balance of advantages compared with disadvantages.
  The main disadvantage of any biocide, including chlorine, is that it must be applied to the entire water volume. Biocide dosing is carefully controlled and minimised for both environmental and cost reasons. Power stations therefore operate with chlorine at the limits of detection in the water discharge. The chlorine reacts chemically with organic materials throughout the cooling system and its concentration reduces as it reacts. As stated previously, the dose level is regulated so that it has virtually completely reacted and is only just detectable at discharge. In addition, the purge water discharge will be very rapidly and significantly diluted by river water at the point of discharge. The combination of low concentration, further continuing reaction and major dilution virtually eliminates traces of free chlorine at a very short distance from the discharge point. I was pleased to have the opportunity to explain that.
  Mr. Hood: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for the explanation. I now understand a biocide and its use as clearly as mud.
  Mr. Dickens: My hon. Friends understand it. That is why we are prepared to stay late to deal with the Bill when we could have rushed back to our constituencies.
  Mr. Jack Thompson rose——
  Mr. Dickens: I want to make more progress before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The temperature of the water discharged will vary with ambient temperatures. The maximum temperature differential between the water discharge and the estuary will be 7 to 12 deg. C. That will be of interest to the hon. Member for Wansbeck, so I hope that he is listening carefully. The quantities of water discharged from the power stations will be very small compared with the flow of water in the estuary, and dilution effects very rapidly bring water temperatures down to background river levels. It has been found that the effects of heat gain from the sun can far exceed warming effects from cooling water discharges. That is exceptionally important.
  Mr. Michael Brown: There is only one problem a bout that—in the Humber estuary, we are lucky if the sun ever shines.
  Mr. Dickens: If we succeed with the Bill, I think that the sun will shine brightly.
  At Fawley, where direct cooling is used with a traditional oil-fired power station in a particularly sensitive marine environment, there is no evidence that the
  1044
  discharge of chlorinated warm water has had any adverse effect on the European Community-designated shellfish waters surrounding the discharge outfall.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: The hon. Gentleman is making a number of interesting points. I should like him to go back to the application of biocides. Can he tell us more about the biocides in chlorine, how temperature-sensitive they will be, what effect dosages of biocide would have on wildlife in the Humber estuary, and what measures will be taken to prevent any such discharges?
  Mr. Dickens: I am pleased that that point has been raised. That very point has been of great concern to some of the interested parties. Most of them examined closely the point about leakage which my hon. Friend has raised. I mean the hon. Gentleman, of course—I nearly called him my hon. Friend because we went to Japan together.
  The interested parties consulted included Glanford borough council, Humberside county council, North Killingholme parish council, Anglian Water plc, the Electricity Council, Lindsey oil refinery, Shell UK, British Telecom—I do not know why that is in the list—the Department of the Environment, the Duchy of Lancaster, the local Members of Parliament and the European Parliament, the National Rivers Authority, the North Eastern Sea Fisheries, the port manager of Associated British Ports at Grimsby and the harbour master of Associated British Ports at Hull, British Rail's eastern region, Trinity House, the Crown Estate commissioners, Immingham town council, British Coal Corporation, Simon Storage Company Ltd., Conoco Ltd. and so on. I shall not detain the House by listing the others.
  That list of interested parties demonstrates the care and sensitivity of the promoters of the Bill, National Power and PowerGen—the successors to the Central Electricity Generating Board—who have ensured that everyone is in harmony and understands what is intended. We have no complaints.
  Mr. Terry Patchett: I am awfully impressed by the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the Bill. In what part of the Humber would he discharge the water?
  Mr. Dickens: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman understands the pipework involved. If not, I will give him a talk on it.
  Mr. Patchett: Right now?
  Mr. Dickens: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to detain the House.
  At the moment, entry into the Humber is being sought quite close inshore, just underneath the seabed. It is likely that each power station—hon. Members will be aware that we are talking about two power stations on adjacent sites—will use two pipes. That is what is required. The Bill, however, gives permission for 12 if others are required to deal with breakdowns.
  The construction programme for the power stations is worthy of note as it reveals the rate of progress and when those power stations are expected to be operational. The power plant contract for the National Power station was placed on 6 July 1990. The preliminary work started on 2 January 1991 and the main site work is due to start on 1 August 1991. It is hoped that full commercial operation

  1045
  will commence on 31 July 1993, which will mean that much more electricity is produced for the lucky people of the north-east.
  The preliminary works contract and power station turnkey contract for the PowerGen station was placed on 1 February 1990. The preliminary works were completed on 13 June 1990 and the main site work started in September. It is hoped that the first module will be fully commissioned and its acceptance tests completed on 1 October 1992. The second module should be fully commissioned and its acceptance tests completed by 1 February 1993.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is something suspect about organisations which make an application and receive permission to build two power stations then having to come to the House for permission to put the pipes in? If the House turns down the application for those pipes, what will happen to the power stations?
  Mr. Dickens: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because we are trying to replace an archaic permission that was given some time ago—a permission given in the event of an oil-fired power station on the same site. Tonight we are simply trying to ensure that those power stations have access to cooling water. It is a purely technical matter and no harm will be done to the Humber, the sea or local residents.
  This Bill has been introduced because the promoters could not bring themselves to believe in a million years that some hon. Members would be so bigoted and entrenched for other reasons as to oppose the installation of the pipes. The promoters thought that their request was simple and straightforward. Hon. Members should please note that all we want is to give the people of the north-east and the rest of the country electricity. All we want is permission to put pipes into the Humber for cooling purposes. We shall achieve that today.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Martin Redmond: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), and he certainly enlightened me on the technical aspects of the Bill. The sponsor, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), failed to reach such technical heights.
  The Opposition intend to oppose all private Bills that seek to facilitate the generation of power until we have a national energy policy, which we need for the benefit of the entire country. If we leave the production of power to market forces, consumers will be held to ransom by the high charges that the power companies will want to impose. Now that the CEGB has been broken and privatised, it is all the more important to ensure that prices to the consumer are reasonable.
  I do not believe that the two proposed power stations will benefit the country. I am at a loss to understand why the hon. Member for Stroud has sponsored the Bill. I should have thought that it would be easier for that hon. Member whose constituency is adjacent to the site to act as the sponsor, as he has local knowledge. Perhaps the promoters' experience with the hon. Member for Brigg
  1046
  and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), however, made them a little reluctant to let him get his hands on another private Bill so soon.
  We have been asked why we are seeking to go against local Labour-controlled authorities. I can understand why any local authority approached for planning permission for a power station grants such permission, given the number of jobs that that would create for local people. I can understand their keenness for those power stations. I cannot accept, however, that I have no right to express views contrary to those of my Labour colleagues, Conservative colleagues or anyone else. I have a right to my opinion and to express it, even if it is not accepted by others.
  We are concerned about British Coal and the number of jobs left in that company. I have one pit left in my constituency—I believe that it is a long-lifer, if there is such a thing today. There are many jobs connected with the pit: likewise, the proposed power stations will generate ancillary jobs. I am not bothered about differences of opinion: all I believe is that there is a need for a national energy plan.
  The Bill does not meet that need, so I cannot understand why companies should go to the great expense of building two power stations and then come to seek to promote a private Bill, which they should have done when they submitted the plans to the local authority and the Secretary of State. I can well understand the urgency of Conservative Members, the companies involved and the Private Bill Office in seeking to rush the Bill through to ensure that there is no hold-up in the erection of the power stations and the pipework that requires the water to ensure that both come on stream at the same time to start producing electricity.
  As far as I am aware, there have not yet been any accurate forecasts of future energy demands. The forecasts always seem to go over the top. I remain to be convinced of the need for the additional generation.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Will my hon. Friend comment on the quality of management of the companies involved in promoting the Bill, bearing in mind the fact that they have commenced work on building power stations without having gained permission for the effluent pipes, so aply described by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens)? I also wonder about the quality of management of the companies that will import half their coal from foreign sources, when we have a record balance of payments deficit. Are not the Opposition right to question closely the Bill's merits?
  Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and he has made his argument in such a fashion that I cannot enrich it.
  There is a question mark over the judgment of the people involved, who seek to erect power stations which they might not be able to use because they failed to submit plans to enable them to receive the necessary water. There is a need for the Opposition to continue to examine the issue in great depth, both here on the Floor of the House and, in detail, in Committee. As a point of order, I wonder whether the Bill is correct. I remember the gerrymandering that went on over the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which the House approved only to find that it had a slight technical defect which went unnoticed until it reached the other place.

  1047
  I listened carefully when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) introduced the Bill. He mentioned that it was also designed to construct lagoons. I tabled a question on 25 January 1990 to ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intended to give planning permission to PowerGen and National Power to construct a lagoon to provide cooling water for the proposed combined cycle gas turbine developments at Killingholme, and if he would make a statement. The reply was:
  "If either company wishes to construct such a lagoon they will need to apply for the Secretary of State's consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. When granting such a consent he may also give a direction that planning permission be deemed to be granted under section 90(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  No application for consent under section 36 to construct such a lagoon has been received."—[Official Report, 25 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 325.]
  I was a little at a loss, because the hon. Member for Stroud said that we were merely talking about pipes to take water from the Humber, circulate it around the cold water towers and pump it back out. I do not accept that. There are some signs that lagoons will be built.
  Unless I misunderstood or misheard the hon. Member for Stroud, he mentioned lagoons, so I asked him to give way. I do not doubt that the Hansard reporters have picked up the word "lagoons" mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. If we are talking about lagoons, that subject should be within the Bill, which should include the words "pipes and/or lagoons". I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify that point.
  Mr. Knapman: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I said that I did not quite catch the final sentence of his intervention. If he mentioned lagoons, I did not realise it until now.
  The application is for the intake and outlet pipes only. That is the Bill's whole purpose. As far as I am aware, no one involved with the Bill dreamed that there would be objections to it, because it is designed purely to allow pipes to and from the power stations. However, private Bills sometimes have an unpredictable course, and there are a number of other options, but the one proposed in the Bill is by far the best environmentally, commercially and in every other way. The Bill does not refer to a lagoon as such.
  Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlightening me, but I am sorry—once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the companies will not need to come back with another private Bill if they want to construct lagoons. They can simply go to the Secretary of State. If that is not the case, the hon. Gentleman can correct me, but I believe that the Bill authorises the Secretary of State to accept a further application from the companies without them having to resort to section 36 of the Electricity Act.
  Mr. Knapman: The Bill is needed only because of the provisions of the Humber Conservancy Act 1905. If someone wanted to construct a 50-storey engineering block or a lagoon, he would have to go through the planning procedures in the normal way.
  Mr. Redmond: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but if the Bill were to mention extraction from the Humber into lagoons or standby lagoons, that would be all right. However, the Bill is a cheat and is not truthful; hence my question to the Minister. I was not satisfied,
  1048
  because I knew that discussions had taken place between the Minister and National Power, and it seemed appropriate to try to get the position clarified.
  I wrote to National Power and received a letter dated 12 February 1991, which stated:
  "I refer to your letter to John Baker on the lagoon option at Killingholme Power Station. As he and a number of other Executive Directors are out of town at the moment, in connection with the flotation of National Power, he is unable to reply personally.
  Ever since the inception of our Killingholme project we have considered various ways of securing the necessary cooling water in the light of the 1905 Humber Conservancy Act. Naturally, we have discussed our ideas with a number of interested parties, including officials of the Department of Energy. We have concluded that the proposals put forward in the Killingholme Bill represent our preferred solution and we remain fully committed to … this."
  The hon. Member for Stroud says that the issue of lagoons never entered the argument. The Bill clears many of the obstacles and gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to grant all sorts of planning permission. There is no point in anyone trying to kid me. There is connivance between the two power companies and the Department of Energy. If everything is straight and above board, why can they not come forward and state their precise intentions?
  It is right for the Opposition to look in great detail at proposed legislation and to lift stones, because we may find something nasty underneath. We have a right to examine the Bill in depth if we feel that that is necessary. The sponsor is being less than honest in not presenting all the facts about short and long-term plans. Because people are economical with the truth, we shall have to wait a long time for evidence to emerge. Of course, by then it will be too late; when the Bill becomes an Act, we will not be able to touch it, as it has received all sorts of approval. This is the only opportunity that we have to look in depth at the Bill.
  Is there a plan to build lagoons? If so, why has that not been mentioned? I am sure that the hon. Member for Stroud will apologise for misleading the House when such lagoons are eventually built. The hon. Gentleman lectured us about pipes and pollution. It was far too much for me to take in, and I should be grateful for a repeat of his speech.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman advances an interesting argument about lagoons. Where in the Bill is there mention of a lagoon? I have looked, and I cannot find one. He says that, although a lagoon is not mentioned in the Bill, one will be built, because the Bill gives permission for something.
  Mr. Redmond: I said at the start of my speech that lagoons were not mentioned in the Bill. However, I know that they were discussed and will continue to be discussed for some time. Are the companies being deliberately misleading or deceitful about that matter, which obviously has implications for the environment and for the Humber Conservancy Act 1905? Perhaps, if lagoons had been mentioned in the Bill, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other conservation bodies would have taken a greater interest, made objections and organised petitions. Lagoons have been mentioned in private. Any hon. Member seeking confirmation of that should ask the hon. Member for Stroud whether lagoons were discussed.
  The letter that I read to the House shows that pipes are the preferred option, but it does not state categorically that there will be no lagoons. I am sorry to labour the point.

  1049
  The Bill permits the abstraction of water from the Humber, and it will allow the Secretary of State to take decisions without having to come to the House. I am willing to allow the hon. Member for Stroud to give a categorical assurance that no lagoons will ever be constructed on that site. Obviously the hon. Gentleman cannot give that assurance. I shall move on.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a good idea.
  Mr. Redmond: I did not intend to be at cross purposes with such a charming lady, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are extremely tolerant and understanding. However, because of the leeway extended to Conservative Members, I sought to develop the point and seek clarification. It is clear that I am right and that the Bill's promoter is wrong.
  Pipes will take water from the Humber and that water will circulate in the system and then be pumped out. We are told by the experts on pipes, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, that that will cause very little pollution in the Humber. I do not know what pollutants the water will pick up on its travels round the cooling system. Will there be some mechanism to extract pollutants before the water is returned to the Humber?
  Mr. Dickens: I am certainly not an expert on pipes. I asked for some briefing material before I came to the Chamber. From the briefing material that I have read and my study of the subject, I know that the issue of lagoons does not arise. Containers or catchment areas are not needed. In my speech, which the hon. Gentleman will be able to read and study tomorrow at length, I dealt with the imperfections and materials in the water. They are taken care of because there must be a clean system.
  Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman is too modest. His speech showed that he was articulate and had a good knowledge of the subject. What he said about pollution raised the question whether filters would remove pollutants before the water was discharged. It was said that there would be some pollution, but that, because of the controlled way in which the water was released, pollutants would be slowly dispersed in the Humber, and tidal waters would carry them far away.
  There is bound to be pollution. A power station somewhere in the north causes pollution about which the Irish complain.
  Mr. Dickens: Perhaps I can clarify this point. The water released into the Humber would be no more polluted than the bath water in which we immerse ourselves—warm, chlorinated water. Indeed, bath water is soapy, and that is dangerous.
  Mr. Redmond: There would be pollution, and the effect would be long-term. Only after many years have we begun to understand the effects of pollution on the ecosystem. I assume that the water being discharged would be warm. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will comment on the effects on mussels and other wildlife. It is necessary that the extent of the pollution be understood, but no one has asked any questions about its nature. Obviously it is necessary to be wary. If the Bill goes to Committee, the Committee members will want to examine this matter very closely.
  1050
  Then there is the question of sludge. It is necessary that water discharged into the Humber be free of silt.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: I have not heard any answers to the questions that my hon. Friend is asking. We have not heard whether the water would be discharged by gravity or by means of a pumping system. The discharge of water under pressure has significant safety implications. Eddies are created, and the estuary bed is disturbed.
  Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The promoters of the Bill have made no reference to this matter. I assume that water would be discharged under pressure. Of course, I cannot be sure about that.[Interruption.] Apparently it would be.
  Mr. Michael Brown rose——
  Mr. Redmond: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes wishes to intervene. On a number of occasions when I sought to intervene, he refused to give way. However, as I am a gentleman, I shall give way.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Of course, I am only a secondary modern schoolboy and probably did not have as good an education as the hon. Gentleman. I shall have to be trained in these matters.
  If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about pollution, let me tell him that this power station would emit virtually no sulphur dioxide and about half the carbon dioxide and one quarter of the nitrogen oxide emitted by the power stations that I drive past when I am going round the Ferrybridge area.
  Mr. Redmond: Pollutants of that sort will be produced from South African coal. But I shall not be diverted by the hon. Gentleman.
  We could argue about whether there are solutions. The Government ought to put their hands in their pocket and provide the necessary cash to help eliminate the problems. The technology needed for their elimination is there; what is needed is the cash. We can find billions of pounds to wage war overseas, but the war against pollution has to take a back seat. It is right that we should be concerned about pollution.
  Clause 13(2)(a) says:
  "the Secretary of State may by notice in writing require the appropriate company".
  It should be noted that the word is "may"; it ought to be "will". Because of such wording, one has grave reservations about whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading. I hope that, in spite of the three-line Whip, Conservative Members will see the need to reject it.
  Clause 12(4) refers to "21 days' notice in writing". Throughout the Bill there are variations—seven days, 21 days, 28 days. There really ought to be some consistency. Perhaps the period provided throughout the Bill should be 28 days. I hope that the promoters will take note of that point.
  I am also unhappy about clause 14, which is entitled "Provisions against danger to navigation". There have been difficulties, but I think that the situation is picking up, and I hope that it will go from strength to strength. The more ships that use the Humber, the greater will be the danger to navigation. One must take into consideration any additional obstacles created by this Bill. We know only too well how serious can be the pollution caused by damage to a ship.
  Clause 16 says:

  1051
  "The Secretary of State may at any time,"—
  again "may", where the word should be "will"—
  "if he deems it expedient, order a survey … and any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in any such survey or examination shall be recoverable from the appropriate company."
  My understanding is that the Secretary of State would be able to say to a company, "The survey cost £5,000. I now require that amount from you." That is as it should be. It will enable the Secretary of State to monitor activities, and also to ensure that the companies are sticking to the terms of the Bill.
  Clause 16(2) states:
  "The rivers authority may at their own expense at any time carry out a survey".
  I should have thought that, if the companies were genuinely concerned about pollution, they would be only too pleased to pay the rivers authority any necessary costs to ensure that everything is above board and complies with pollution laws.
  I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I felt that it was important to express my anxiety about the omissions from the Bill. I am also concerned about private Bills that give carte blanche authority to private companies compulsorily to purchase land. I do not believe that any private company should have that right, or the right to extinguish rights of way. People have enjoyed rights of way for many years, yet companies, in their pursuit of profit, want to take them away.
  The Bill will go to Committee, where we hope that it will be considered in even greater depth, line by line. I hope that the Committee will check and double-check. Our experience of private Bills is that there is some kidology, some gerrymandering and some deliberate misleading of the House through the omission of the true intentions behind a Bill.
  Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend's speech is informative. As he has reached only clause 16, I plead with him not to sit down and miss out the remaining 21 clauses. I would much appreciate it if he would continue with his speech and give us the benefit of his wisdom.
  Mr. Redmond: I would do so, but I am gasping for a pint. I also have a dry throat.
  Mr. Illsley: Perhaps I could give my hon. Friend the opportunity to catch his breath. Before he ends his excellent speech, will he elaborate on his point about the Bill being misleading? We owe a debt to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) because he pointed out the companies' intentions about biocides, the injection of chlorine and so on. My efforts with the "Oxford English Dictionary" failed to reveal any such word as "biocide". Although we obviously 'Understand the meaning behind the hon. Gentleman's speech, we cannot find any definition of "biocide" or, indeed, any examples of "biocides" by their chemical names. Should not the promoters of the Bill come to the House with more detail of the chemicals that the companies intend to put through the pipes, the permission for which we are discussing tonight?
  Mr. Redmond: I regret that I am not as conversant as the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth with all the technical details, so I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's questions. Perhaps the proceedings should be stopped to enable the sponsors of the Bill to clarify those points. My hon. Friend desperately wants to know the
  1052
  answers. If we can be given that information, it is possible that the Bill could then sweep through unopposed. I suspect that, because of the half-truths in the Bill, we will not know the whole truth for a number of years. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would like to stop the debate to allow clarification of those points, I should be only too happy to comply with your ruling.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is an invitation that I must refuse to accept.
  Mr. Redmond: I am sure that that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) did not put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I could make many, many more points that would call into question the true intent of the Bill. The Committee must go through it line by line. It must cross-examine the companies' representatives who, I am sure, are listening to the debate. The Committee must ensure that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is presented to the House.
  8.56 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): When this matter was last debated on 14 January, I gave my view about the Bill, and nothing has happened since then to change it. However, for the sake of completeness, I shall summarise my position. In January and April last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave his consent and investment approvals for two power stations of the combined cycle gas turbine design. Having given those consents, after due consideration, it would be perverse if my right hon. Friend or I did not support a Bill seeking to provide the necessary ancillary works, which in this case are the cooling water works in the River Humber.
  The projects have been exhaustively considered by my right hon. Friend and also by the planning authority, as we have heard. The thinking behind the Bill had been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), and we have had a most accomplished technical exposition from my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). In the light of all those considerations, I am happy to support the Bill in its present form.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: When we last debated the Bill, the Minister spoke from the Dispatch Box for only 10 minutes and failed to answer a number of questions that I and my hon. Friends asked. In view of his even briefer time it the Dispatch Box today, I invite him to intervene during my speech to answer my questions.
  The Bill seeks planning permission to complete a multi-million pound project, much of which has already been built. If I had been spending such large amounts of money, I would have done my homework beforehand to ensure that the money was being spent wisely.
  When the Bill was debated on Monday 14 January, I said that the Opposition were reluctant to give their approval to the Bill without the House having given due consideration to the implications of increasing the gas generation of electricity.
  Contrary to the way in which some Tory Members misrepresented Opposition policy that night, our reluctance is based on Britain's need for a strategy for

  1053
  electricity generation rather than a hotch-potch of new power stations built to suit private generators or the two generating companies that we are told are now in fierce competition with each other.
  Once again tonight, the private Bill procedure is being used to make major strategic energy decisions which should properly be made by Ministers of the Department of Energy—a criticism which the Government have again declined to answer tonight.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was the sponsor of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. We have never been told why he is not sponsoring this Bill. The Committee which considered the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill expressed its concern about being asked to make what were intrinsically policy decisions which should have been made by the Government. Its comments in its special report could equally be applied to this Bill. The Committee said that it was unanimous that the arguments raised complex matters of energy and trade policy for which the Government must take ultimate responsibility. The Government have still to explain their policy on electricity generation.
  However, we have heard about some of the casualties. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) spoke briefly but forcefully about the likely casualties of the change in electricity generation that has taken place during the past two years under the Government. The Bill may not be directly related to that issue, but no one who is listening to the debate or who reads it subsequently should be surprised at the attitudes of my hon. Friends to private Bills promoted by these two companies.
  Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the Committee which considered the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—and the House when the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House—were deceived. This Bill may not be directly related to the earlier one, but no one should be surprised at people's attitudes in relation to this Bill.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Do the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) represent the views of the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who are directly affected by the Bill? It is interesting that they are not here.
  Mr. Barron: Hon. Members can take part in debates in the House if they so wish. My hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have not contacted me on the issues involved in the Bill but, like most hon. Members, they are against deception, and that is what I believe took place in the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.
  I accept that there is a case to be made for burning gas in certain circumstances, based on efficiency and cleanliness. The environment is important and it should not be ignored. Contrary to what some Tory Members suggest during debates on the coal industry, for example, the Opposition are concerned about the environment, but cleanliness and efficiency are not the only criteria, nor do they override other considerations that we as legislators should take into account.
  1054
  Applications for the construction of gas generating stations should be based on a range of criteria, such as the efficiency of energy conservation, the use of power generated and the source of the gas.
  There can be no question but that we would support the use of gas if it was for combined heat and power development, which would achieve the highest practical efficiency. The short-term advantages of using gas purely for electricity generation are outweighed by the long-term considerations.
  Mr. Hood: Some take the view that gas provides a cheap form of electricity generation, and that if we go for gas turbines, everything will be hunky-dory. I remind my hon. Friend of the current situation in rural communities, which rely greatly on bottled gas—the price of which has increased by more than 35 per cent. since the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August. Suppliers of bottled gas have been able to rip off rural communities because of their market monopoly. What guarantee is there that gas turbine generators will not do the same?
  Mr. Barron: The worldwide tie-in of gas prices to oil prices ought to bother all right hon. and hon. Members, and the consequences of events in the middle east should concern everyone in the country.
  The Secretary of State seems to hand out permission for new gas power stations without giving any thought to their location. If they must be built, it would make more sense for them to be built in parts of the country where there is little or no power generation, rather than in areas that have a large share of power stations—some of which could be displaced.
  Over the years, we have frequently argued about the building of power stations in south-east England, which has a major need for electricity. The Government have an involvement because of the need to extend planning permission through the private Bill procedure. Other areas are denied such permission, to right the imbalance in electricity generating capacity.
  Mr. Knapman: Has the hon. Gentleman contacted the Labour-controlled Humberside county council to discover why it is in favour of the Bill?
  Mr. Barron: I have not, nor has the council contacted me about my Second Reading speech or my actions in that connection. I should be more than happy, however, to receive representatives of that authority—as I did in respect of the legislation involving a new coal terminal that involved the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.
  Gas is a premium fuel, and to burn it to produce electricity is wasteful. The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association's evidence to the Cullen inquiry estimated in mid-1988 that there were 25 gasfields in production or under development and that another 35 had been discovered but were not yet developed. The report stated:
  "gas production which was currently about 4,500 million cubic feet per day, was projected to halve by the end of this century."
  A recent report from the stockbrokers Kleinwort Benson entitled "Natural Gas to set Europe alight" reported:
  "substantial new gas will need to be contracted by British Gas from 1995 onwards—but even if gas from new fields in the North Sea is contracted by 1998–2000, there will still be a deficiency between supply and demand."

  1055
  That has major implications for electricity generation and for all the consumers who are supplied from British Gas mains. The unchecked development of gas generating stations will increase our dependence on imported fuel. Last year, we imported gas to the value of more than 40 million tonnes of coal equivalent. That is a massive fuel trade deficit for a country that is so energy-rich.
  The Kleinwort Benson report predicted that increases in European demand will be met in the first instance by the European group of 10, which it describes as a secretive and anonymous group of gas producers who are
  "top class, admittedly monopolistic bodies who efficiently control production, transmission, and distribution of natural gas."
  That is an obvious extension of the free market that the Conservatives have been forcing down our throats for the past 11 years. According to the report, after 1997, the percentage of imported gas from non-European countries will increase markedly. Surely it is the height of irresponsibility to encourage the dash for gas for electricity generation that we have seen in the past two years.
  During our previous debate on the Bill, I mentioned press reports that the two new generating companies had gas contracts with the Caister field, which is scheduled to last for only another seven or eight years. I asked where the gas would come from to supply the turbines after that, but I received no answer—as we have received no answer from the Minister tonight. I ask the question again: will the gas come from the Gulf or the Soviet Union? They are hardly stable, secure sources of supply in current circumstances or, perhaps, for a long time to come.
  Mr. Dickens: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. The Select Committee on Energy conducted an extensive, in-depth study of gas depletion. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is doing himself justice by arguing that gas supplies will not be sufficient. Let me set his mind at rest. If he gets a copy of our report from the Library, he will find that his argument is bogus.
  Mr. Barron: I do not agree. If the hon. Gentleman himself gets a copy of the report from the Library, he will seee that my name is attached to the gas depletion policy contained in it, because I was a member of the Select Committee that drew it up. If he was present and listening to what was said then, he could be in no doubt that, by the turn of the century, Britain, and western Europe as we now know it, will be dependent on gas from eastern Europe as we now know it. That was one of our more simple findings. I need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman. He had better have another look at exactly what the report says.
  Our competitors must think that the Government are crazy to squander our resources in this fashion. If honesty ever overcomes the Department of Energy arid its Minister, I believe that they will accept that. Britain should not depend on imported fuel—it should not depend on the undependable. The proper use of our own resources would prevent that.
  I want to say something to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), not about his lengthy discourse about the finer aspects of planning applications, but about his comments on security of supply. I agree with him. I think that security of supply is vital. Every electricity user will have put it at the top of his list. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a country that is experiencing an energy crisis. The electricity went off every four hours. The crisis has devastated the country's
  1056
  economy. It imports fuel, and until it can again establish its own source of supply, its economy will go from bad to worse.
  Security of supply, however, does not necessarily mean diversity of supply. No-one has ever asked me whether the light bulb at home is lit by nuclear fuel, oil, coal or gas—perhaps methane from a land waste disposal site. People are much more concerned about security than about diversity, as they have every right to be. We, as legislators, should ensure that times of change do not interfere with our ability to keep the electricity burning.
  I warn the House that, before we merrily give permission for new generating stations, we must have the opportunity to debate the Government's strategy for—or should I say their lack of interest in?—the careful management of the country's resources. We will not have to face the difficulties—nor will the Tories, because there will not be a Conservative Government in two years' time—but generations to come may have to pay for the decision to import energy.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: This debate is very simple, and the issue is straightforward for my constituency. There is no reason why the House should not give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
  The power stations are being constructed not as a result of powers required from the House, but as a result of powers that were granted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said, some time ago by the Labour-controlled Humberside county council and Glanford borough council.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, it is significant that the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who are assiduous in representing constituency interests, are absent from the debate. If they were concerned about the Bill, they would have been present today. Their absence shows clearly that they will be hoping and praying for the Bill to make progress. They will be aware that the construction companies will create much employment in the area and many members of the work force will come from Grimsby, Scunthorpe and from my constituency. The fact that those two hon. Members are not present today shows that they do not share the view of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) or his hon. Friends. They will be concerned to learn that there is a difference of opinion between the hon. Member for Rother Valley and the Labour-controlled county council which they loyally support.
  Mr. Hood: Why did the sponsors not have a local Member of Parliament to promote the Bill? Why did they go all the way to Gloucestershire?
  Mr. Brown: The Bill's sponsors, National Power and PowerGen, are national companies. They may have decided that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is an excellent advocate—something that he has shown today. I cannot compete with him when it comes to advocacy and persuasion in this House. The sponsors choose wisely.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will be the toast of the people of south Humberside for what he has done for my constituency today. I give him full marks for the superb way in which he introduced the Bill. He will be championed by my constituents as well as by the

  1057
  constituents of the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I confidently predict that my hon. Friend will receive hundreds of letters from grateful constituents. On behalf of my constituents, I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for the powerful case that he made today in favour of the Bill.
  As I have said before, the Labour party has something against the people of Brigg and Cleethorpes. I do not know why that should be. The Labour party consistently opposes any form of industrial expansion, whether it be docks one year, power stations the next, or construction of pipes the following year. There is something about south Humberside that the Labour party does not like. The Labour party does not want the people of south Humberside to enjoy the benefits of industrial expansion.
  Just before the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill reached the statute book, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) warned me in the House—this is in the official record—that if a Labour Government are re-elected——
  Mr. Alan Meale: When.
  Mr. Brown: All right—when a Labour Government are re-elected, said the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, if there is any construction with regard to the Associated British Ports development, the Labour Government will scrap it. Are the Opposition of that view? I want to know whether the Labour candidate who is to stand in my constituency in the next general election—councillor Ian Cawsey, a delightful young man—will have to say that a vote for the Labour party to sit on the Government side of the House will mean a Government who will knock down, destroy and vandalise the power stations in Luddite way, just as they are committed to knock down the dock development.
  The hon. Member for Bassetlaw did the Labour party no service. The poor chap who is the Labour candidate, Councillor Ian Cawsey, has a millstone around his neck because the Labour party are saying that, if it is ever in government, it will knock down the dock development which it opposed when in opposition. If the Bill is passed into law before the next general election, will the hon. Member for Rother Valley as Energy Minister introduce legislation to knock down gas-fired power stations?
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Councillor Ian Cawsey when we debated the matter on 14 January. He says that Councillor Cawsey will have another millstone around his neck. He went on to say that the Labour party wants to kill jobs at Killingholme after the power stations are built. I invite him to withdraw that, because I did not say it then and I have not said it today—and nor have any of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Brown: Before I withdraw anything that I have said, perhaps we can get the matter straight. I will withdraw what I said if the hon. Gentleman will confirm that he is saying that, in the event of the Bill passing into law and the power stations coming on stream, a Labour Government would not knock down the power stations and abandon the principles in the Bill. If that is what he is saying and I have misinterpreted him, of course I will gladly withdraw.
  But if the hon. Gentleman did not say that, why are we wasting our time today? The hon. Gentleman is implying
  1058
  that, if the Labour party was in power, it will accept the legislation that we have passed, acknowledge that the power stations were a reality, that the gas would be taken out of the North sea and the water out of the River Humber; but his hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is recorded as saying in relation to the Associated British Ports Act 1990 that a Labour Government would stop construction and end the project.
  Mr. Barron: When we debated the revival motion, and again today, I said that the Labour party was reluctant to approve the Bill without the House having considered the implications of increasing gas generation. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I do not know what he does understand. I invite him to withdraw. In the previous debate, he said that we were out to kill the project.
  Mr. Brown: So there we have it—fair enough. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, if the Labour party wins the next general election, it will consider the legislation and all the arguments that we have deployed—[Interruption.] He added the qualification about being satisfied. However, as I said, if that is the case, I shall gladly withdraw. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and his hon. Friends do not want any gas-fired power stations on South Humberside in any circumstances.
  Mr. Lofthouse: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my speech. At no time have I said that. At no time would I agree that, when legislation has passed through the House, we would do anything to alter it, apart from through the normal democratic procedures of the House, or decide on the legislation for the period of the life of that Government. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to misquote me again. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. At no time did I even remotely suggest what Labour's policy would be on this issue. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he said.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has said that at no time in his speech did he suggest what Labour's policy would be. I do not know what he is saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am simply saying that, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that there are no circumstances in which the Bill would be repealed once it is an Act—[Interruption.] Is that what he is saying? I thought that the whole purpose of an election was that one Government could repeal the legislation of the previous Government. If the Labour party has no intention of repealing any of the legislation passed by the Conservative party during this or the previous two Parliaments, I suppose that we can view the prospect of a Labour Government with some hope.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Steady on.
  Mr. Brown: Indeed.
  Opposition Members seem to be protesting tonight that they want to see the Bill on the statute book—[Interruption.] Well, I believe that that is what they are fumbling their way towards. They are trying to say, "Look, we have been making speeches in which we have pretended to be against the Bill, but underneath all our threadbare arguments—of course, we really have no arguments—we recognise that gas-fired power stations are

  1059
  the way of the future. We recognise the power of the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Stroud"——
  Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) the fact that he should not turn his back on the Chair, and especially not on a lady.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I can frequently see the pleasant face of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. Brown: May I reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, even more frequently, I can see your pleasant face when you are in the Chair? Indeed, it is always a great privilege to face you when you are in the Chair.
  Opposition Members seem to have been fumbling their way towards saying——
  Mr. Illsley rose——
  Mr. Brown: I should like to develop this point, but I will consider giving way in a moment.
  Opposition Members seem to have been belatedly fumbling their way to saying, "We have been making threadbare speeches this evening, but we realise that we have no argument whatsoever for opposing gas-fired power stations. We recognise that they are far cleaner than coal-fired power stations. We recognise that they emit only half the carbon dioxide of equivalent coal-fired power stations, virtually no sulphur dioxide, and only one quarter of the nitrogen oxide emissions of an equivalent coal-fired power station. Therefore, on environmental grounds, we recognise that there is no way in which we can stand in the way of such power station developments." If that is what Opposition Members are saying, I do not understand why they are likely to seek to divide the House at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Meale rose——
  Mr. Malcolm Moss rose——
  Mr. Brown: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss).
  Mr. Moss: Does my hon. Friend think that Opposition Members might also take on board the fact that generating electricity from gas costs about 2·5p per kWh, compared with coal which costs between 3p and 3·5p per kWh?
  Mr. Brown: It was clear from the Opposition's protestations earlier in my speech that, if the Bill is enacted, there is no way in which a Labour Government would seek to repeal it. Clearly, one reason for that is the one outlined by my hon. Friend. Gas is one of the cheapest ways of generating electricity. The hon. Member for Rother Valley has said that the general public do not concern themselves with the manner in which electricity is provided, but I know that, when they receive their electricity bills, the general public do concern themselves with the manner in which the electricity is passed through the electric lights in their houses. I have received many letters from constituents who are worried at their high
  1060
  electricity bills. Even Opposition Members know that there is the prospect of lower electricity bills with gas power generation.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), has shares in one of the electricity companies. Will the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes join us in condemning the proposed 13 per cent. increase in electricity shares in the privatised companies in an attempt to protect his constituents, just as we wish to protect ours?
  Mr. Brown: If the Bill becomes law as quickly as possible, it may be possible to reduce electricity charges more quickly. I hope that many private Bills of this nature will come before the House in the next Parliament, whether there is a Conservative or a Labour Government, because the way to bring down electricity costs is to ensure that we do not pay the unnecessarily high costs of electricity generation that we pay now. Gas-fired power stations are one of the most environmentally beneficial ways of producing electricity. They are also——
  Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will just finish this sentence and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—I am sorry that I forgot my promise to give way.
  Gas-powered electricity generation will in the long run be extremely cost-effective for the consumer.
  Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that Opposition Members opposed jobs being created in South Humberside. Why did he oppose the Nirex depository being sited in his area? That would have brought jobs to his constituency. How can he accuse us of not wanting to bring jobs to the area?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not attend any of the interminable debates between 1984 and 1987 when I was constantly in the House speaking on the nuclear waste issue. If he had been in the House and had listened to the reasons that I gave for opposing a nuclear waste site in my constituency, he would know that I said that no jobs would accrue to my constituents. I also drew attention to the fact that the site which Nirex, the subsidiary company of the Central Electricity Generating Board, wanted to use in 1986–87 had been intended for a power station ever since the end of the war in 1945.
  During our battles against Nirex in 1985–86 and 1987, the fundamental basis of my argument was that the site had always been reserved for a power station. Indeed, in 1972, there was a proposal to build an oil-fired power station. In 1972, a Bill was brought before the House to provide the powers to build it. I opposed the use of the site as a dump for nuclear waste, because it was intended for a power station.
  It is as a result of my winning the battle against the nuclear waste dump that this private Bill is before the House today. But for my victory on that issue in 1986, we should not have the Bill. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) should refer to the Hansard reports of those debates and examine the arguments that I deployed.
  Mr. Meale: Talking of consistency, perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who has just explained why people should support the construction of a gas-fired power station, will

  1061
  tell the House why he supported the construction of a private port in his constituency to import coal from abroad.
  Mr. Brown: It just shows that I always put the consumer first. I am concerned ultimately about competition. My constituency will be available for people to bring their wares through the port of Immingham. My constituency has a wide variety of industry. We have an oil refinery and a large port and now we are to have two power stations. My constituency is in the vanguard of producing alternatives for the benefit of the consumer in the energy business. Customers can look to Brigg and Cleethorpes and see electricity, gas, power stations and the Conoco oil refinery. My constituency offers a choice to consumers of various ways of generating energy and power. I commend the Bill to the House. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will be the toast of my constituents for the way in which he presented it.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) reminds me of Dickens's Artful Dodger; every time he is asked a question, he dodges it. He always seems to be ungracious; when it is pointed out that he has referred to things that have not been said, he does not have the courtesy to withdraw. His speech was practically verbatim the speech he made last time. He will have to get a speech writer, because he has run out of ideas on what to say in debates.
  In the preamble, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) talked much sense. For example, he said that we should be concerned about security of supply. I think he also mentioned concern for our children and grandchildren. When he was giving his discourse on when a pipe is not a pipe, he reminded me of an experience I had when I was in Seattle to give a lecture on alternative sources of energy.
  I cannot remember all the details, but before I gave my lecture, a young Congressman spoke to the packed audience. He said that he was very busy as a Congressman and that he had to have a speech writer, but that there were dangers in having a speech writer. He described to the audience what had happened to another Congressman.
  As that Congressman went on to the platform to address a meeting, a speech was thrust into his hands. He proceeded to read it. It was an appeal to the electors which went something like this, "Vote for me and I will reduce taxation on motor cars and petrol; vote for me and education will be entirely free; vote for me and pensions will be doubled or trebled." He came to the end of the page and turned to the next page where it said, "Now let me explain how I am going to pay for it all." Underneath it said, "You sonofabitch, I found out that you have been seeing my wife. Explain it all yourself."
  The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth delivered his speech with good humour. I tried to explain to him that there is always a danger when one is delivering a written speech.
  Mr. Dickens: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind things that he has said about my speech. I was careful to give credit to Labour Members for their deeply held views on and support for the coal industry. I think I
  1062
  also said that I stand square with them in their support of the coal industry. The promoters of the Bill are also very committed to the British coal industry. The hon. Gentleman must not lose sight of that.
  Mr. Eadie: I am not trying to be critical of the hon. Gentleman in any way. He has made many comments in the House with which I disagree, but I know that he has been very supportive of many aspects of the coal industry. I hope that he will not take offence. I did not think that, particularly in his preamble, he was offensive to me or my hon. Friends or about the coal industry. It is important to examine the hon. Gentleman's preamble, because, when talking about security of supply, we must consider energy provision.
  I know that the Bill will be debated at length in Committee, but when it first appeared, mistakes were made. I do not have the time to go into them now, and the House would not want to listen. Since the first appearance of the Bill, however, massive changes have occurred relating to energy provision. For example, the Gulf war—I do not want to go into that now—has made an impact on that provision.
  The use of gas for electricity power generation is irresponsible—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) about that. We do not have enough indigenous gas to meet our needs; we must import it.
  I know that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth supports the coal industry. When we talk about energy provision a la security of supply, we are fortunate, because we have enormous supplies of indigenous coal. In that case, should we be considering security of supply? I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to ensure that we have safe, adequate supplies of energy. I have often addressed the House on the importance of having an indigenous provision of energy. That means everything to us, because, if we do not have energy provision, we shall die. It is of crucial importance.
  We are entitled to scrutinise the Bill carefully. My only concern is that many of my hon. Friends who want to speak will not have the opportunity to do so before someone shouts for a vote at 10 o'clock. I do not believe that that does us damage, but, should it happen, it greatly damages Parliament, because one of the criticisms of this place is that we do not spend enough time debating legislation. I do not minimise the importance of this debate, as we are talking about something that sustains life.
  When I was considering what to say in this debate, I recalled what Dr. Ernst Schumacher, the extremely talented German chief economic adviser to the National Coal Board from 1950 to 1970 said on pit closures. It is well worth remembering how he described the policy of closing mines that had not been exhausted—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford has already described that policy as one of vandalism and irresponsibility. Dr. Schumacher said:
  "It is a policy of doubtful wisdom and questionable morality for this generation to take all the best resources and leave for its children only the worst. But surely it is a criminal policy if, in addition, we wilfully sterilise, abandon, and thereby ruin such relatively inferior resources as we ourselves have opened up, but do not care to utilise. This is like the spiteful burglar who does not merely pinch the valuables but in addition, destroys everything he cannot take".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford mentioned the tremendous amount of investment that the

  1063
  Government have made. No one can argue about that, but as quickly as they invest, they destroy. Nowadays, comparatively new pits are closed, which means that the investment is, to some extent, a fraud on the nation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) will know that, at present, I am battling for the reopening of Monktonhall colliery, which is mothballed, is not closed and contains millions of tonnes of coal. The local authorities have completed a study and produced an argument to show how it could be viable. I regret that they have had trouble meeting Ministers or the chairman of British Coal to discuss the plan, which was drawn up by independent consultants. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be difficult to make a more eloquent critique of the Government's present policy, not only on coal but on energy provision, than the words of Ernst Schumacher, whom I quoted earlier.
  During the debate, figures have been bandied about on the provision of natural gas. It is generally conceded t hat its provision is limited. I hope, if I have time, to come to the issue of price, which was quoted by Conservative Members to further the Bill's Second Reading. I wish to introduce into the debate a western European, rather than merely a British, dimension, because that is relevant to us today.
  The war we are waging in the Gulf involves a coalition of forces. One hopes that there will be a coalition of forces and forms of collective security to preserve the peace. But if we talk about collective security in relation to defence and war, we should talk about it in relation to energy provision. There is nothing inconsistent in that.
  Western Europe has 31 years of proven natural gas reserves at the 1989 production rate, although half the reserves are held by non-EC countries such as Norway. Western Europe's proven oil reserves are much smaller—only 13 years at current production rates, with Norway holding half of them. The preliminary remarks of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth were valuable, because he too has been thinking about that dimension. The world reserves of gas and oil are only 55 years and 44 years respectively. The House should use those figures when talking about security of supply and energy provision for our people. The EC probably has a minimum of 200 years coal reserves at current production rates. That is a viable insurance policy as oil and gas run out. In the EC, there are hundreds of years of technically recoverable reserves of coal.
  Coal is probably the most complex of our hydrocarbon resources, it can be converted into many petroleum products and substitute natural gas. That will become necessary in the early part of the next century. When I was a Minister, I was proud to sign an agreement with Sir Derek Ezra, then the chairman of the National Coal Board, to set up three pilot plants to make oil from coal. Different systems were used, but I shall not bore the House with the details. We abuse our scientists far too much because Britain is good at technology. We are an inventive nation. We decided that the best of the three pilot projects would be examined to see if it was commercially viable.
  I am sorry to say that the 1979 general election intervened. My successor said that that was the right way to deal with science and technology, but, despite a promise that the projects would carry on, I am afraid that they were buried, because the Government are anti-science and anti-technology. I am sorry to say that, because such an attitude affects the whole nation and in future may affect its wealth.
  1064
  A rapidly declining coal industry cannot sustain the level of research and development that is needed to prove new technologies of coal liquefaction and gasification. The coal industry continues to decline, and we ruthlessly close pits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford has said, when a pit is closed, there is no way of regaining access to that God-given wealth. How can we develop the new technologies when we are destroying our indigenous capacity to produce coal?
  Mr. Jack Thompson: In areas such as mine, and on the eastern coast of Scotland where the mines extend under the North sea, closed mines are certainly written off, because there is no way in which one can gain access to them. That is because the North sea has flooded the workings and the cost of getting back at those reserves would be prohibitive.
  Mr. Eadie: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I know his area well. There was talk in his area about gas and oil. The coalfield in his constituency is very old, and I had a suspicion that all the coal had not been worked. I proposed a working party to examine my hon. Friend's coalfield, because we had discovered from examinations that in many areas there is sometimes more coal than was ever mined. It was possible to discover that because North sea oil exploration has introduced new seismic studies. I do not know whether that applies to my hon. Friend's area, but I had proposed that a working party carry out an examination of that area. I believe that that is the function of Government. After all, as I said earlier, we are talking about wealth.
  In recent years, Britain has been the only net exporter of energy in the EC. In 1988, United Kingdom primary energy production accounted for 39 per cent. of all the primary energy produced in the EC. United Kingdom coal accounted for 10 per cent. of the total. This was one of the few secure long-term resources of the Community.
  We must look at this matter in a European and global context. When I was gathering these figures, I was surprised to learn that the EC is now nearly 50 per cent. dependent on imported energy. That figure would increase to 55 per cent. if the United Kingdom were to abandon its deep-mine industry and instead import coal, gas and oil. If all EC hard coal production were to cease, and if current consumption rates were to continue, the level of dependency would rise to over 60 per cent.
  Mr. Meale: I do not want to disturb the direction of my hon. Friend's speech, but may I ask him to dwell for a moment on the question of the people who work in coalfields throughout the world? I am thinking of the ages of workers, and so on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I find it a little difficult to relate the remarks of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) to the contents of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take note of that.
  Mr. Eadie: I understand the point that you are making, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I appreciate your tolerance. However, I am dealing with points that have already been raised in the debate. As has been said, it will be a scandal if a vote is taken at 10 o'clock. Many of my hon. Friends want to speak.
  There has been reference to gas imports, and some very optimistic scenarios have been put forward. It is only right that I should comment on some of them. In 1990, gas imports amounted to 81·4 million tonnes equivalent. Most

  1065
  scenarios anticipate that, by the year 2010, that figure will have doubled. At the end of 1990, the European authorities removed the restrictions on the use of gas in power generation. It is likely, therefore, that there will be many new gas-fired power stations, but where will the gas come from? That question is indeed relevant to this Bill.
  We could also ask about the price. For some time, it has been assumed that, except in the case of Norway, the gas will come from the Soviet Union and, to a lesser extent, from Algeria. As the energy crisis in the Soviet Union deepens, this assumption becomes questionable. For that reason, as well as for others, we should question this whole proposition. In 1989, for the first time, Soviet gas production, at 796 billion cu m, failed to meet the planned target of 820 billion cu m. The increase of 26 billion cu m from 1988 did not make up for the drop in oil, gas and nuclear production.
  The collapse of Soviet oil output from the record 624 million tonnes in 1990 is forcing the Soviet Union to use more of its own gas supplies. Falling production and the deep crisis in the nuclear industry places even more pressure on the gas industry. In the wake of a series of minor strikes, coal production fell by 32 tonnes to 740 million tonnes in 1989. It fell by a further 4·8 per cent. during the first seven months of 1990, compared with the equivalent period in 1989. There has also been the Chernobyl disaster.
  We must appreciate the true position about gas. The EC—that includes us—has only 2·2 per cent. of the world's gas reserves. Western Europe as a whole, at 1989 production levels, has gas reserves of 31·3 years, which is the smallest amount per region, after north America. That shows that it would be a scandal if the Bill, which would mean the burning of gas, were to go through unchallenged.
  I can give the figures for gas reserves region by region. North America has 12·6 years, which is a 6·5 per cent. share of the total. South America has 75 years, which represents 5·8 per cent.; western Europe has 31·3 years, which represents 4·9 per cent.; the USSR—on which people have pinned their faith—has 53·2 years, which represents 37·6 per cent.; eastern Europe has 14 years, which represents 0·7 per cent.; Africa has 110 years, which represents 6·7 per cent.; Algeria has 72·3 years, which represents 2·9 per cent.; Asia/Australasia has 55·3 years, which represents 7·1 per cent.; the middle east has 350 years, which represents 30·7 per cent. The source for those figures is British Petroleum.
  The middle east has 350 years of reserves, of which Iran has the largest share, with 12·5 per cent. of the total, followed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi, each with 4 per cent. of the total. Declining reserves and the growing import tendency are now being combined with uncertainty about prices. The belief that gas prices are being decoupled from oil prices is no longer sustainable because of the price increases following the third-world shock.
  I was astonished that one Conservative Member, who argued in favour of the Bill, tried to promise that, if we allowed the Bill to go through, it would mean a decrease in electricity prices. An examination of the facts shows that to be a bogus claim. In 2010, we will be confronted with a 40 per cent. increase. Solid fuel is to some extent different.
  1066
  Security of supply is a central issue. Oil reserves in western Europe have only about a 12·6-year life at current rates of gas production. Reserves stand at only 31·3 per cent., increasing the insecurity of supply.
  Mr. Meale: Will my hon. Friend dwell a little more on the implications of the insecurity of the Gulf, the Soviet bloc and South America for maintaining supplies at gas stations such as the one in the Bill?
  Mr. Eadie: For the convenience of the House, I skipped many of my figures, but I showed that, if gas is a diminishing supply—of all the fossil fuels, it contracts—the future of power stations is bound to be jeopardised.
  Gas is a wonderful fuel. A lot can be done with it. We are fortunate to have the reserves we do. Unfortunately, we are consuming more than we are finding. The world is consuming more than it is finding. At one time, it was thought that the best way to use natural gas would be in developing the petrochemical industry—the by-products that could be obtained from it. However, we have changed our minds quite a bit on that.
  Gas reserves were originally believed to be more limited than is now thought to be the case. It used to be thought that, come the late 1990s, gas reserves would be exhausted. There have been more finds, which we welcome, but there have been no really magnificent finds.
  Those who are hell-bent on using gas as a means of generating electricity place much faith in the belief that, although they confess that we would not have enough indigenous gas, cheap gas would be available from the Soviet Union which could be transported by pipes running below the North sea. But that will not materialise. There is much instability in the world at the present. To some extent, the Gulf war is part of the energy production crisis.
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that gas and coal reserves will eventually be exhausted. Does he not agree that the generation of electricity by nuclear power will become more important in future?
  Mr. Eadie: I have taken part in many debates on the topic of nuclear power generation. The hon. Gentleman must face up to the problem that——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The real problem seems to be that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is being led astray by that intervention.
  Mr. Eadie: I understand why the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) asked that question, but the alternative of nuclear power is not the one before us. I was only going to remark that nuclear power is just too unforgiving at present, and I cannot see myself ever being able to forget that.
  The security of supply argument was advanced at the start of this debate in support of the Bill. Western Europe's oil reserves have a life of only 12·6 years at current production rates, and gas reserves will last for only 31·3 years. The European scenario has been projected as far ahead as 2010. World oil and gas reserves will also be quickly depleted over the next 20 years. That inherent insecurity will add to the problem of external supply, and is a central issue in formulating not only a national energy policy but an EC-wide policy.

  1067
  Apart from the moral question whether or not western Europe should continue to monopolise 31 per cent. of world oil imports, the central issue of security must also be considered.
  Mr. Knapman rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division:
  Mr. Hood (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but I suspect that it is more a point of frustration. It might be better if he put the point to me after the Division, when it will be easier both for the House and for me to hear.
  Mr. Hood: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is certainly not a point of frustration. At the beginning of the debate, I raised a point about the credibility of the private Bill procedure. It seems strange that the three-hour debate that we were originally allowed should be cut short. The Bill has 37 clauses. Surely it is not in the interests of the House to allow such a short debate on Second Reading, and I ask you to extend it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not able to speak in the debate, and. I am sorry about that, but he did manage to make some interventions.
  The hon. Gentleman's point is not a point of order for the Chair, but one that he could have made during the debate had he been called. I am sorry that he and a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House could not be called before I accepted the closure motion.
  The House having divided: Ayes 154, Noes 50.

  Division No. 84]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Curry, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Beggs, Roy

  Day, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Devlin, Tim

  Bellotti, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Benyon,W.

  Dunn, Bob

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boswell, Tim

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brazier, Julian

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bright, Graham

  Forman, Nigel

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Butterfill, John

  Forth, Eric

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Freeman, Roger

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gale, Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gill, Christopher

  Cash, William

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Gregory, Conal

  1068

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Ground, Patrick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hague, William

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Norris, Steve

  Hannam, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

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

  Paice, James

  Harris, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Pawsey, James

  Hayward, Robert

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hill, James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Squire, Robin

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stevens, Lewis

  Irvine, Michael

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Jack, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Janman, Tim

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Kilfedder, James

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thorne, Neil

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Knapman, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Tredinnick, David

  Knox, David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Livsey, Richard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Wallace, James

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Madel, David

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mates, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Wood, Timothy

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Mr. Malcolm Moss and.

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Mr. Michael Brown.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Lamond, James

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Barron, Kevin

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Maxton, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Meale, Alan

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Michael, Alun

  Crowther, Stan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cryer, Bob

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dalyell, Tam

  Nellist, Dave

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Patchett, Terry

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

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dobson, Frank

  Rogers, Allan

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Eadie, Alexander

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Flynn, Paul

  Vaz, Keith

  Foster, Derek

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Home Robertson, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  Hill Livestock
  10.25 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
  That the draft Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
  The regulations apply to Great Britain and will bring into effect an increase in hill livestock compensatory allowances used in less-favoured areas. An identical order for Northern Ireland has already come into effect. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is present on the Government Front Bench.
  The regulations concern 65,000 farmers, 52,000 of whom are in severely disadvantaged areas. The regulations would increase the rate for cattle in severely disadvantaged areas to £63·30, and for hardy breed ewes, which includes herdwicks, which have become famous as a breed in upland areas, would increase the rate to £8·75. Hardy breed ewes account for 58 per cent. of all ewes in less-favoured areas. For other ewes, the amount will increase to £4·90. In disadvantaged areas, which are slightly less difficult but still less-favoured, the rate for cattle will be £31·65 and for ewes it will be £2·45. That represents a 14 per cent. increase and a global amount of £17·5 million. It takes total public expenditure on hill livestock compensatory payments to £142 million.
  I shall not rehearse the history of the payments, but I will concentrate on three or four matters that will interest hon. Members. We had some difficulties in bringing in the new proposals. The Agriculture Council agreed by qualified majority, with the United Kingdom voting against, amendments to the structural regulations in November 1989. Three of the amendments effectively concerned HLCAs. The first was the imposition of a limit of 1·4 per livestock units per hectare as a limit for payment, and a livestock unit is one cow or 6·66 recurring sheep. It also introduced a limit on full Community funding—25 per cent. in the case of Great Britain and 30 per cent. in the case of Northern Ireland—to 60 livestock units per holding, and half that amount was between 60 and 120. Finally, it permitted member states to lay down certain environmental conditions for the grants and for livestock compensatory amounts. The United Kingdom already imposes a limit of six ewes per hectare in severely disadvantaged areas and nine in disadvantaged areas, for environmental reasons to do with the intensity of grazing.
  We were obliged by the Community regulations to apply the limit from the 1991 payment, but the payment in our legislation reflected 1990 numbers. In that sense it was retrospective and we had to be satisfied that the regulation concerned was directly applicable. Once that was settled, we were able to print the application forms and the guidance notes, and they went out to farmers in the week of 11 February. We have made special arrangements at the divisional offices and at the Guildford computer centre to process the applications. We can start making payments as soon as the instrument is passed in this House and in another place tomorrow. People are working weekends and overtime to process the applications as fast as we can.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The regulations come into force as the Minister said, but when will the payments be made? Will he state the time scale, because
  1070
  farmers are desperate to have the much-needed cash in their pockets? Will the allowances be paid by the end of March or before?
  Mr. Curry: I was about to come on to that. How much we can pay depends on how many applications we receive. Farmers have to send back their applications. In England, we have received almost 1,300 claims from the midlands and western region and we have processed 41 per cent. of them. We have received 2,600 claims from the northern region and we have processed about 26 per cent. of them. From the south-west we have received about 650 applications and have processed about 23 per cent. Altogether, we aim to have about 55 per cent. of the total payments out by the end of March. We shall turn round the others as soon as they come into the offices. That is the key.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On the same point but in relation to Wales, when can we expect payments to farmers in Wales to be completed? As the Minister knows, farm incomes in Wales are in a particularly poor state.
  Mr. Curry: The forms went out on 7 February. I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman when payments will be completed, for the simple reason that that depends on farmers returning the application forms to us. They have all received their forms. As soon as they fill in the forms, we shall turn the applications round as rapidly as we possibly can. We recognise the cash flow problems, and our purpose is to get the payments out to farmers as fast as we possibly can. We have therefore put our offices on standby and they will work overtime and weekends if necessary in order to get the payments out to the farmers.
  We have not increased the maximum amount payable per hectare, which is set at £62·48 in the severely disadvantaged areas and £46·86 in the disadvantaged areas. We have held that rate for two reasons. First, to have increased it would have benefited those with the highest stocking rates at the expense of the others, as the actual increase per head would have been lower. Secondly, we wished to have regard to the environmental implications of stocking rates.
  Mr. James Wallace: One of my constituents reckons that he has lost about £2,000 through that rate being held. How long has the figure remained at £62·48? Is it not the case that the Minister could have put it up to a ceiling of £77·33? Even if one accepts the environmental principle, that could be preserved by index-linking the figure that he has chosen. That would at least allow some much-needed income to those who have seen a drop of £100 per head in the price of their cattle.
  Mr. Curry: We faced a choice. We wanted to get the money to people who faced the most difficulty. We therefore chose to allocate the resources—which, as in all Government business, are finite—to producers in the highest hills and to increase the headage rate rather than the maximum payable per hectare. We shall of course review these matters in the autumn, as we do every year.
  On the differential between the severely disadvantaged areas and the disadvantaged areas, we brought the disadvantaged areas into the scheme in 1985 and paid them at the half rate. We have maintained that differential, which reflects the severity of the natural handicaps. As I

  1071
  said, a review is due in the autumn and we shall reconsider that differential with an open mind. However, I am not willing to give any guarantees on it.
  With those preliminary remarks, which I have deliberately kept limited so that the maximum number of hon. Members could participate, I commend the regulations to the House.
  10.33 pm
  Dr. David Clark: We welcome the fact that we are having this debate on hill livestock compensatory allowances, and we realise why the Government have allowed us to have it. We appreciate that they are in some difficulty in the upland constituency of Ribble Valley and that they feel that by blowing their trumpet tonight and extolling the virtues of their payments, they may be given some credit in that part of the world.
  We welcome the debate for a much deeper reason. It allows us an opportunity to highlight the plight of the upland farmer, who is the most pressurised of farmers—and most farmers are pressurised under this Government. The Minister has made great play of the increases in payments this year. We applaud those increases. It would be churlish not to do so, but it is right to put on record the fact that they do not make up in real terms for the four years when the Government froze HLCAs. The payment that farmers get after this increase will be less in real terms than they got four years ago. Those are the years when the damage was done to upland farming and when the income of upland farmers took the greatest strain.
  According to the Government's own figures, the income of upland livestock farmers dropped by a dramatic 60 per cent. between 1988 and 1990. That is too large a fall for any farmer to absorb. Income falls can be absorbed for a year or so by delaying maintenance payments, but that can go on only so long. In the upland areas it has gone on far too long. Farmers in such areas rely heavily on HLCA payments, and the difficulties are beginning to show.
  The Minister almost anticipated the questions that would be pressed on him from the Opposition. Why was there a delay in payment this year? The Minister gave us a lot of baloney about European this and European that, but he knows that that is simply not on. In last year's statement, looking ahead to 1991, the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food said:
  "This will be our review, on our terms, about our hill problems, and we will not automatically carry through the views that have been approved by the European Community contrary to our wishes."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 160.]
  Why the delay? The Minister made it clear that he would be master in his own house and that he would decide what was what. Now, the Under-Secretary of State tells us that the delay is all because of Europe. There has been a history of delay in payments. When the right hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale was Minister, he used to make the announcement in November or December each year, so that farmers knew where they were from the beginning of the incoming year. Under the present Minister, the announcement was made on 30 January last year, and this year it was made on 11 February.
  I could not understand the significance of 11 February until I discovered that, on 12 February, the Minister was to address the annual general meeting of the National
  1072
  Farmers Union. That was perhaps a happy coincidence, but the farmers in the uplands must be glad that at least the NFU has an annual general meeting.
  Mr. William Cash: It is only a small point, but did the hon. Gentleman mean Morecambe and Lunesdale or Westmorland?
  Dr. Clark: I meant the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), the previous Minister of Agriculture but one.
  This is yet another example of the Minister playing a game of petty politics. He ought to treat upland farmers more seriously.
  Normally, the forms are sent out at the end of December and farmers start to receive payments about the end of January. As the Minister has admitted, this year the forms were held back and were not sent out until the middle of February. As we have heard, if farmers are lucky, they will get some payment by the end of March. The Ministry gave no warning to farmers about the delay. Indeed, it was left to Opposition Members to raise the issue persistently to try to find out what was happening. Why were the forms not sent out to farmers earlier? The information required to calculate the payment is based on the details of farms as recorded on 1 January, so why the delay?
  The Minister represents many upland farmers and I know that he appreciates the hardship that they face, so why was it not possible to issue part of the HLCA at the end of January and the rest later? There is a precedent for that. In the November before HLCA payments were issued in 1986, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, issued the following statement:
  "I am well aware that, following the exceptionally bad weather earlier this year, many farmers in the Less Favoured Areas are facing cash-flow problems. To help this, I am preparing to introduce special procedures for the 1986 HLCA payments under which all claimants will receive about 75 per cent. of their claim very shortly after submitting their application, with the balance being paid as soon as possible after 1st April 1986".
  That was a sensible decision, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated the cash flow problems of 1986. If the Minister does not already know it, his farmers will tell him that, because of the Government's economic policies, farmers today, especially those in the uplands, have similar cash flow problems. Why has the Minister not treated them as sympathetically as they were treated in 1986?
  Earlier today, I followed the Minister to the forest of Bowland and I had the great pleasure of meeting a farmer, Mr. Dinsdale, of Cuttock Clough farm. He has 130 hectares of difficult marginal land that goes up to the top of the trough of Bowland. On it he has 300 hardy ewes and 20 suckler cows. He is typical of many upland farmers throughout the United Kingdom. It is vital that they stay in business.
  In common with many farmers in my hon. Friends' constituencies, Mr. Dinsdale has diversified to increase his resources. He has a caravan park and a clay pigeon shoot, but he is struggling to make even them pay. This year he will get a subsidy of £8·75 per ewe; last year it was £7·50. Last year he got £1,800 for his wool, but this year he will be lucky to get £1,100. As the Australian and New Zealand wool boards are pulling away from their guaranteed prices, that figure could be even lower. Mr. Dinsdale will get only between £14 and £17 for each of his ewes because,

  1073
  as the Minister will be aware, the hardy breed ewes are small and usually have only one lamb at a time. Last year, such ewes fetched £34. The year before they fetched £54. This year Mr. Dinsdale will be lucky to get £17 per ewe. This year alone, Mr. Dinsdale's income will be cut by £6,000, yet the Minister will compensate with a payment of £375 extra for his sheep.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I hope that this intervention is more relevant than the previous one.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is talking about matters relating to the Ribble valley, an area I know well as I was at school there for about 12 years. I therefore know that trough of Bowland well. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's view that the problems of upland farmers are the fault of the Government, the MacSharry proposals, which come from the European Commission, will work against those who have as much as 130 hectares. In other words, the Government are trying to defend people such as Mr. Dinsdale, but the Commission and the MacSharry proposals will have the opposite effect.
  Dr. Clark: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention was superficial, but that one was worse. The MacSharry proposals are about the future. The hon. Gentleman has failed to grasp that we are talking about the past and the present. The MacSharry proposals have nothing to do with tonight's debate on current HLCA payments.
  Mr. Dinsdale's standard of living has fallen. He has not farmed badly. He is a good farmer, but the economic conditions under which the Government have operated have made it impossible for his farm to be a healthy investment. Agriculture in the United Kingdom this year and the Government's publication confirm how steep the
  1074
  decline has been for Mr. Dinsdale and other upland farmers. I stood on his farm today and he told me of two neighbours who have already quit. They are only two of the 16 farmers who are leaving their farms and land each day the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sits in Whitehall place.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Will it be Labour party policy to make up the £6,000 which was the hon. Gentleman's estimate of what Mr. Dinsdale and his neighbours have lost?
  Dr. Clark: I congratulate the hon. Member on making a sensible point and anticipating my very next sentence.
  Why does the Minister resist the Labour party's idea of paying such farmers a green premium for managing their farms in an environmentally friendly manner? They look after their landscape; the community wants that sort of landscape and will pay for it. Last year, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave me hope. He specifically mentioned his hopes to add environmental conditions to the HLCAs. Why has he not done so? The only conditions we have are those imposed by Europe.
  The Government's White Paper on the environment referred to integrating environmental and agriculture policies. It stated:
  "EC support schemes will be required in return to protect and, where possible, enhance the environment on their holdings ….
  The conservation of the countryside can be an inherent part of good practice in livestock farming, and agricultural policy aims to ensure that basic support for agriculture will provide environmental benefits."
  Bearing in mind those promises and the fact that the technical amendments in the sheep meat regime proposals from Brussels for the 1991 price review are likely to lead to a considerable cut in production subsidies for upland sheep farmers, it is imperative that other support, such as environmental payments, is brought forward. By failing to do what they promised, the Government have let down the farmer, the environment and the consumer.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have a number of hill farmers in my constituency, and only 10 days ago I met my local National Farmers Union branches and the High Peak Livestock Society, which has many members in the hill district of my constituency. When I met my hill farmers, they appeared to be content with the announcement made to the House by the Minister. But at that meeting, and subsequently, they expressed reservations and advised me that investigation of the rates of the hill livestock compensatory allowances revealed that everything was not as it seemed. It is important that the Minister should clarify those issues tonight.
  In order that the House should fully understand the points that I am about to make, I should say that I understand that some rates that applied before—for example, an upper limit payment for six ewes per hectare and a controversial financial limit of £62·48 per hectare—still remain. But the Minister announced a new financial limit of 1·4 livestock units per hectare. I think that I am right about this, but if I am not I shall give way to the Minister. I understand that the limit is for the severely disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas at the relevant rates.
  Under the old system, the farmer calculated the number of sheep and drew the relevant rate up to a maximum of six ewes per hectare. The difference between the sheep payment and the financial limit of £62·48 was then taken up by the suckler cow to the maximum financial limit. My farmers were led to believe from a copy of the Minister's announcement in the House that there was a new financial limit of 1·4 livestock units per hectare.
  Mr. Richard Livsey indicated assent.
  Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) nods agreement.
  A livestock unit is defined as one bovine animal, namely a cow, or 6·7 ewes. It is therefore natural to assume that the new financial limit was 1·4 livestock units times the new rate for cows, which is £63·30, which comes out at £88·62. My farmers were under that impression when we met that Saturday morning at a large meeting in my constituency.
  On checking with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regional office in my area, Berkeley Towers in Crewe, and with Nottingham and Wolverhampton and with the Ministry in London, my farmers were told that the old limit of £62·48 per hectare stands, and that is the figure from which they will operate. One accepts that any farmer who does not carry the number of stock required to take him to the financial limit will have an increase under the new rates, but any farmer who is stocked to the maximum rate using the HLCA criteria will not receive any increase.
  Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and correct point. We should find out from the Minister whether the 14 per cent. increase that he mentioned is 14 per cent. within the parameters that the hon. Gentleman describes. Has the Minister done his sums?
  Mr. Winterton: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter when winding up.
  One must bear in mind the fact that the size of farm is immaterial, because the limit is financial and is attached to
  1076
  the area. That means that the small farmer will be hit proportionally harder. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, the small hill farmer must be encouraged because, in the context of conservation, such farmers are important and will continue to be so.
  I and, I think, many hon. Members are uncertain, and there is no doubt that many farmers in disadvantaged hill areas are also uncertain. Hill farmers in my branch of the NFU and members of the High Peak Livestock Society accept that it is one thing if rates are not raised but that it is entirely another to create the illusion of a substantial rise when that is not the case. I am sure that all hon. Members who represent farming constituencies, and especially those with hill farmers, are aware of the fall in farming incomes in less-favoured areas. They have dropped by 60 per cent. in real terms over the last two years.
  That is not my figure, but the official figure published by the Ministry. The controversial figure of £63·30 has been in place since 1984. Since that time, we have encountered grave problems. One of these is inflation, much of which has been generated, directly or indirectly, by Government policy.
  Miss Emma Nicholson rose——
  Mr. Winterton: I will not give way. My hon. Friend is always angry when I speak the truth. [Interruption.] Well, if she wants to be helpful, I shall be happy to give way.
  Miss Nicholson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, whereas it is not good that some other product subsidies should be linked to output, a link between this subsidy and output is a very good thing in the modern world, as the upland farmers are producing the sort of meat that every dietitian says we should eat?
  Mr. Winterton: I am tickled pink. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is taking my side in an argument. I entirely agree that
  "The mountain sheep are sweeter,
  But the valley sheep are fatter".
  I forget who wrote those lines, but they are part of a famous poem that I learned at school many years ago.
  The situation facing the sheep farmers in the marginal areas of this country is very serious indeed. Will they get an increase, or will many of them get no increase at all? They require an honest answer from the Government. In the last two years, they have suffered huge income reductions. When will they be assisted? As well as producing food for the nation, they maintain the countryside—and the Government often profess that maintenance of the countryside is one of their high priorities.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. We have less than an hour to go, and a number of hon. Members still wish to speak. I, too, shall be tickled pink if Members take to heart my appeal for short speeches.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), with his usual ferocious independence, has told the truth. We look forward to hearing a head-on reply to the points that he has made so eloquently.

  1077
  Speaking for the Labour party, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that he wanted to applaud the Government for the increase that is reflected in these regulations.
  I should prefer to say that we are thankful for small mercies. Small mercies they are. The last thing that the Government deserve for any part of their agriculture policy is applause. It was amazing to hear a Labour Front Bench spokesman speak in those terms.
  It is crucial that we look at HLCAs in context. I can use my constituency as a good example. Proportionately, Montgomery is the most agricultural constituency in the United Kingdom. Its dependence on HLCAs and other agriculture support mechanisms is probably as great as that of any other constituency. Let us look at what is happening to constituencies like mine. In recent years, Montgomeryshire has had low unemployment. Now, my constituency has the largest unemployment increase percentage in the whole of Wales. Between January 1990 and January 1991, unemployment rose by 48 per cent.—four times the Welsh average. The figure for men was 53 per cent. In Wales, we in Montgomeryshire have an unenviable lead of 20 per cent., but other agricultural constituencies are also badly affected. Monmouth has experienced a 26 per cent. increase in unemployment in the last year, and the figure for Brecon and Radnor is 25 per cent.
  Examples are to be found also in English constituencies with a strong agricultural base. Perhaps the best one to choose is Huntingdon, which is of interest to the Government. Unemployment in that constituency has increased by 44 per cent.——
  Mr. John Home Robertson: How many hill farmers are there in Huntingdon?
  Mr. Carlile: Huntingdon has a strong agricultural base, and it has had a 44 per cent. increase in unemployment in the past year. The Government should face up to that.
  As has been said, Welsh farming income has dropped dramatically. In 1990——
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Carlile: I shall heed your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.
  Mr. Carlile: In 1990, there was a 23 per cent. fall in Welsh farming incomes, following a 28·2 per cent. fall in 1989. Those decreases do not take account of inflation. The Welsh fall is greater than the United Kingdom average. Finished cattle prices are running at about the same level as 1990, and that means that they are below 1989 prices. Finished lamb prices are well below 1990 prices.
  We are extremely concerned about the continuing delays in payments to Welsh farmers. The suckler cow premium was paid several weeks later, just before Christmas. We know what an awful mess the Government are in with the forms for hill livestock compensatory allowances. It is not good enough to blame Brussels. The Government could have produced forms that requested all the information that they needed to make HLCA
  1078
  payments well before the uncertain time that they are now offering. They failed to do so. They know the effects of such delays in an industry that as many as 6,000 farmers left in 1990.
  Part of the context of the regulations is, of course, the MacSharry proposals. We support the Government's rejection of those proposals as being highly discriminatory against the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said earlier. As the Government have suggested, the original MacSharry proposals penalise the more efficient producers. We are extremely concerned about the knock-on effects, especially on the livestock sector, and about changes in other sectors.
  We will be interested to hear from the Minister what the Government are saying about the new proposals that have emanated—and I use the word advisedly, for they are nothing short of an emanation—from Brussels today. The proposals spell further decline in sheep, beef and milk—a 2 per cent. reduction in the support price for lamb; a 2 per cent. cut in the milk quota; a minute reduction in the green pound, which will do practically nothing to help the British farmer; and the virtual removal of the safety net for beef farmers.
  Let us hear from the Minister how this very small HLCA increase fits into that context. He must confess to the House that, overall, there will be a further decline in the position of farmers in the hills of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Curry: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that the budgetary discipline guidelines should or should not be observed? Is he recommending that we should or should not go through the budgetary discipline guidelines? The proposals from Mr. MacSharry, which emanate—whichever verb the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to choose—are in response to the problem of agricultural budgets exceeding their targets. Does he believe that we should or should not go through those? If he does not, we must exercise restraint; if he does, we want to know that.
  Mr. Carlile: We now hear from the Minister what appears to be an acceptance of the appalling revised proposals made today. It is no use telling the farmers of Wales or any of the other uplands in the United Kingdom that they must make do with half an agriculture policy, which is all that he is offering them. We need an agriculture policy that ensures the survival of farming in the hills, for without that there will be nothing on or at the bottom of the hills, as he well knows. It is essential that the Government start planning for the future by introducing new mechanisms within the United Kingdom that include farm management contracts for farmers, country management contracts, and all the other aspects of our 10-point plan that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) described so clearly in the House in our agriculture debate a few days ago.
  Mr. Curry: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question? There is a problem of an overrun on the budget. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that there should be measures to bring the budget back within its guidelines—yes or no? That is the question that Mr. MacSharry has to face. That is the question which every member of the Agriculture Council will have to face. It will not go away. It has to be answered.
  Mr. Carlile: I will tell the hon. Gentleman again: the Government must produce a policy which will ensure a future for British farmers. If the budgetary disciplines are accepted in the form in which it appears we must accept them, he will have to take steps to produce a policy for the future of upland farms. He has produced no ideas at all, either in this debate or before it. I see some approval from Conservative Members for that statement. No steps at all have been produced to that effect.
  Mr. Cash rose——
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlile: No, there is pressure on time.
  We give a guarded welcome to the announcement for HLCA rates for 1991. We are thankful for small mercies. But there are two extremely disappointing aspects. The first is the financial limits. Those financial limits have not been increased from £62·48 per hectare in the severely disadvantaged areas and £46·86 per hectare in the disadvantaged areas. That means that many producers will not be better off because of the increased rates. The EC maximum rates are £77·33 and £58 per hectare respectively. We believe that the financial limits should be moved closer, if not up to those maxima. Let the Minister tell the farmers why the British Government will not increase the limits to or near those maxima.
  Mr. Curry rose——
  Mr. Carlile: I shall not give way. The Minister can reply to the debate later, and I look forward to hearing him.
  Many farmers are in a catch-22 situation. They will not benefit from the increase because of their stocking densities. The new rate for hill cows is higher than the maximum stocking density per hectare. That means that hill farmers stocking more than one cow per hectare will lose out on the increases. What sort of support is that for hill farmers? Many will be blocked from benefiting from the increased level of payments. The scheme has been changed far too much and it is now full of inconsistencies.
  Another severely worrying matter relates to the disadvantaged areas. The 50 per cent. rule has been retained on disadvantaged area payments. It means that producers in those areas will get only small increases which do not keep pace with inflation over the years. Again, that is an unsatisfactory aspect of the proposals.
  Those of us who represent hill farming areas warn the Government that farming is in as serious a decline as that faced by the steel industry years ago and the coal industry too. We see communities faced with break-up and massive unemployment. The Government must do far more than pat themselves on the back over a small increase in HLCAs. They must come forward with a full policy for upland areas, or they will have no credibility whatever in the farming industry.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I only wish to take up the point that has just been made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and to support the Government in what is an extremely difficult position which has been brought about by
  1080
  proposals emanating from the European Commission, not from the Government. I have the greatest sympathy with the Government's position.
  The fact is that the whole of the CAP is in need of significant reform. The fund's structural problems, the way in which the hillstock farmers' difficulties have been addressed, and the problems concerning Mr. Dinsdale, which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery mentioned, turn on the way in which the situation has been orchestrated. The rules relevant to the 1950s and the 1960s are not relevant to the 1990s and the year 2000.
  This afternoon, the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am a member, examined proposals to reform the common agricultural policy. It is essential and in the interests of British farming that we get to grips with the real problem—votes in France, Germany, and Italy. Until we address that aspect, we will not resolve the GATT problem, which could bring world trade to a grinding halt. We must appeal to our friends and colleagues in Europe—although sometimes they are not so friendly—to address the issue of helping the farmers of this country, so that we may resolve the issues that arise in the GATT talks.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery would not allow me to intervene in his speech, but I draw to his attention the people who are getting substantial subventions from the Community that neither the Commission nor the Community's budget can justify. They are Bavarian pig farmers, those running small or uneconomic farms, those looking to the Commission for a social wage, and those who are not farmers at all but who run farms on a part-time basis.
  The problem will not be solved by reducing it to an argument about technicalities. It is a political problem, and one that must be resolved by Community policies directed at the Community, not at the specific interests of individual countries. It will not be resolved until the Community and the Commission are prepared to grapple with the problem, and Mr. MacSharry is prepared to consider the interests of the Community as a whole, not just his own Irish farmers.
  I hope that my points will be taken on board by the Commission, because there are those in this House and throughout the country who are no longer prepared to countenance the current situation.
  11.12 pm
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The constituency that I represent is not predominately agricultural, but is has some significant and beautiful agricultural land. Much of it is in the north Pennines and is therefore used for hill farming. My constituency also includes land that was formerly given over to industries such as steel and coal, which have suffered from a lack of the intervention which agriculture has enjoyed.
  The situation in Weardale is different from that in hill farming areas represented by other right hon. and hon. Members. That community has suffered many economic problems, and they have been intensified by those now confronting hill farmers. The Government's agricultural policies are threatening the future of their communities and their land.
  Weardale has traditionally considered itself a working dale, embracing manufacturing and industrial activity as well as agriculture. This week sees the demise of the last of

  1081
  Weardale's industrial works, in upper Weardale, and the closure of its mineral works, where mining of fluorspar has been an important activity for many of the families who, although their livelihood is based on farming, have topped up their incomes by involving at least one member in industrial work. During the past three weeks, more than 200 workers have been made redundant and the last 35 will go this week.
  I have met the hill farmers numerous times. They held a meeting last night, and have written to me of their concern about the future of wool. Other hon. Members have already mentioned that, and I do not want to go into the details, but the farmers feel that that is another example of the way in which their livelihood is disappearing. Some of the hill farms in Weardale have already been sold off to Saudi Arabian princes who are interested in the shooting rights. I am not sure what the events of the past few weeks will mean for the future of that moorland; there is a slight irony there.
  I want the special character of the uplands to be protected and developed, not abandoned. All the farmers tell me—and I believe them—that, unless the land is tended by farmers, it will decline, and I already see signs of that.
  Many of the points made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) have been raised elsewhere. There is considerable confusion about the nature of the financial reward that the Government's proposals will supposedly bring, and great concern about the delay in the provision of money and about the future structure of support and development. Many farmers genuinely feel that they have been abandoned; they are clutching at every straw presented by the Government, because there is nothing else, but every facet of their livelihood and their life in the community has been stripped away.
  I cannot emphasise strongly enough to the Minister the extent of the crisis facing the communities of upper Weardale. Tonight's debate deals with just one aspect of that crisis, but it points to the critical need for a Government policy to deal with the current decline, which affects not only individuals and their families but whole communities and the future of land and land use. I hope that the Government will see the debate in the context of a range of other issues; I have not mentioned interest rates, but they are having a major effect as well.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister mentioned that sitting beside him is the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who is the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland. He has been sent over from England to look after the people of Ulster. He and I recently attended a conference at Greenmount agricultural college on the subject of the family farm. One of the main guest speakers was the EC Commissioner, Mr. Raymond MacSharry, from Sligo.
  One of the startling facts that emerged from the conference is that 25 per cent. of farmers in Northern Ireland are now trading at a loss. They are losing money per animal. Most of that 25 per cent. farm in what are known as less-favoured areas. It is against that
  1082
  background that we must consider the regulations that have been recommended for Great Britain and which will apply subsequently to Northern Ireland.
  The background is also coloured by the fact that, with one exception in the past five years, there has been no increase in HLCAs. As several other hon. Members have said, there has also been a considerable reduction in the real income of farmers in recent years. Farmers' incomes in Northern Ireland have been reduced by 45 per cent. in the past two years.
  Agriculture is in a serious state throughout the United Kingdom. We understand the point that the Minister was trying to make to Liberal Members earlier—a point that they would not accept—that there are budgetary restrictions in the European Community and that we have to evolve policies within those restrictions. It is all very well to say that we must help farmers to do this, that and the other, but we must operate within a parameter. Is the policy right within that parameter?
  We have two agriculture organisations in Northern Ireland. One, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association, condemned the new HLCAs. Its spokesman, Mr. Bradley, described them as
  "nothing more than a pittance. It is disgraceful. It doesn't take any account of inflation and the fact that hill farmers are worse off today than they were five years ago … Farm incomes have fallen by 45 per cent."
  The larger of the two organisations is the Ulster Farmers Union. It welcomed the increases for cows and sheep, but it expressed some reservations.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the smooth ministerial statement today disguised the pain and suffering that will come soon to farming families who have already experienced lower incomes from livestock sales? Now, because of financial limits, our efficient livestock farmers will have lower incomes disguised as an increase.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. When the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tried to sell the increased HLCA payments, he said that they would mean an extra £2·7 million for the farmers of Northern Ireland. He ignored the financial limit per hectare. There might not actually be a £2·7 million benefit to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) was right to emphasise that point.
  The Ulster Farmers Union stated that it is
  "extremely concerned that the United Kingdom Government has not increased the Financial Limit per hectare in either the old or new less favoured areas. This will probably pose a problem for smaller farmers with intensive stocking rates."
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is the point.
  Mr. Taylor: I am glad that Tory Members agree with me.
  I am not sure whether the Minister is speaking only for Great Britain tonight or for the United Kingdom as a whole, but I want to ask several questions that apply to the United Kingdom. The Minister's presentation of the deplorable delay in the introduction of the increases in HLCAs was a little too smooth. We should had have them towards the end of last year, but we are getting them three months later. We must have a thorough explanation tonight because farmers are not satisfied with what they have heard and with the reasons that have been given for the delay. Is the delay due to the Government's ineptitude, or is it entirely the responsibility of the European

  1083
  Community? We need a firm answer. Farmers are losing money. Some 25 per cent. of them are running their farms at a loss, and the delay in the announcement of HLCAs is deplorable.
  How quickly will the payments be released to our applicants in Northern Ireland? Will it be done in a matter of days or weeks? As there has been such a delay, we want a special effort to be made to ensure that payments are released as quickly as possible to try to aid the cash flow in hill areas in Northern Ireland and in less-favoured areas.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: My concern is obviously about Scotland, but my colleagues in Plaid Cymru have expressed their great worry about problems in Wales. Hon. Members have heard tonight that there are common problems throughout every part of hill and uplands agriculture. That industry is crying out for Government action. I hope that we shall hear more than we have heard tonight if matters are to be handled properly for that important sector of the economy.
  I hope that the Government realise how imperative it is to get money into the hills and upland areas. Farmers are now facing their lowest incomes in real terms since the second world war, at a time of high interest rates and rising costs. The result is that record numbers of people are leaving the industry. Nowhere are the problems more evident than in the livestock sector, which is being hit hardest. Farmers in the hills and uplands have no alternative but to produce livestock.
  Given the importance of that sector in terms of employment, the economy and its role in rural communities, why is there no commitment to those areas and why is there no support? I am concerned that, because of the state of the industry, we may be about to see modern-day clearances of the hills and upland areas of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We must add to those problems the shadow of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the common agricultural policy proposals. The industry is in trouble, and it is looking for support and action, but it has seen no sign of them from the Government.
  Instead of a clear policy, through no fault of their own, our farmers get high interest rates to suit the overheated economy of southern England. Instead of getting assistance, they find that they are hit with falling incomes and rising costs. The allowances are welcome, but they are inadequate to meet the needs of the industry if we want that industry to remain and thrive in rural communities. Hill and upland farmers are crucial to the survival of Scotland's rural communities. They are entitled to ask what future and what commitment the Government see for them. There has been precious little so far.
  Why have the HLCAs been delayed yet again? The industry is crying out for income to tide it over its current massive cash flow problems. The Government are perfectly willing to spend massive amounts on weapons of war or on sweeteners for privatisation and all the other items that they consider a priority. It is time that they considered hill and upland farmers and agriculture to be a priority. Much smaller amounts could then bring about massive rewards for the country in terms of food
  1084
  production and a saving in imports and thereby ensure the future of rural communities. Why has the staggered delay been allowed?
  I have asked the Minister when payments would be made, and he said that he expected that 55 per cent., of payments would be made by the end of March in England and Wales—that is, if I heard him correctly. He is saying that nearly half the payments will not be made for more than one month. That is totally unacceptable, given the cash flow difficulties facing the industry.
  The Minister said that part of the problem was that the farmers had not submitted the forms, but he admitted that the processing figures showed that there was a major difficulty in the Ministry's bureaucracy. He said that, as at 22 February, only 41 per cent. of the forms received in one region had been processed. By definition, therefore, 59 per cent. had not been processed. In two other English regions, 73 per cent. and 77 per cent. respectively had not been processed. In the light of the bureaucratic problem, can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that the payments will be made as soon as possible? A delay until the end of March is too long, given the cash flow problems facing the industry.
  Because of the cash flow problems in the industry, I am worried about how far the HLCAs will stretch. Problems are linked. As the Minister is aware, knackeries are closing. Hill and upland farmers in many areas are faced with the problem of getting rid of dead or fallen stock when there is no local knackery to which to send the animals. The extra costs will be borne by the industry. What are the Government doing to assist it?
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about transport?
  Mr. Welsh: Indeed. Yet another problem is offloaded on to the industry, but there is no sign of any Government action or any acknowledgment of the problem. The United Kingdom is in the minority of European countries in not providing some form of government assistance. It is a matter of priorities. If the Government consider that agriculture, especially the hill and upland sectors, is a priority, the industry could be given a shot in the arm and the future of the industry and the rural communities that it serves could be secured with expenditure of a relatively small amount.
  My plea is that the Government should get cash to the hills and uplands as fast as possible. The livestock industry is in trouble and deserves urgent action.
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Although I represent Cannock Chase in the heart of the midlands, which rises to an elevation of 800 ft, I do not claim today to speak on behalf of a constituency interest. I hope that the House will allow me this indulgence. As I come from a borders farming family and am the grandson of a borders farmer, over the past eight years I have had my ear bent by my family——
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And by a close neighbour.
  Mr. Howarth: Yes. It therefore did not seem inappropriate to raise these points. The Douglases have been the longest-serving tenants on the Duke of Roxburgh estate—I think that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) knows only too well what I mean—going back beyond 1700. When I go to the borders, I feel a sense of participating in a long and honourable tradition.

  1085
  As we all know, whatever constituency we represent, farmers have been having a tough time in recent years. Over the decades, they have been urged by us all, and particularly their political masters, to produce ever more food, to invest, to mechanise and to become more efficient, and they have done so with considerable effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) told us where the problem lies—not with the efficiency of the United Kingdom agricultural community but with our continental partners' desire to subsidise inefficient farming practices on the continent. I am sure that we all agree.
  I requested my uncle's views and, writing to me shortly before Christmas, he said:
  "Since 50 years ago we have been begged, pressed and, sometimes, forced to increase production and I suggest that no industry has done just that any better. We were also encouraged to borrow vast sums of money to enable us to do that, and many of us have done so. Suddenly about four years ago the country and Western Europe wakened up to the fact that most of what we'd been pressed to produce was not over-produced, with the result that we've been faced with colossal drops in prices, coupled with payments for interest on borrowed money at rates of interest far in excess of anything that could be foreseen when the money was borrowed."
  My uncle adds that his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), will be able to substantiate what he has written. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not be participating in the debate, but I am sure that he will acknowledge what my uncle wrote.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British farmer has contributed to the surpluses to an extremely limited extent? Farmers in other countries in the Community have created the surpluses.
  Mr. Howarth: I think that my hon. Friend is right, but I do not claim to be an expert on these matters.
  It is to the Government's credit that they have sought to tackle the problem of excess production while representing to the best possible extent the interests of the British farmer. It has not been easy to combine those tasks.
  We know that prices to farmers have fallen dramatically, while their costs have increased relentlessly. At the same time, farmers have become more efficient. The example of my own family is that, in 1928, two farms employed 10 people but today they employ only three. It is the farmer who undertakes most of the work on the farms. No one can accuse farmers of having been inefficient.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will be aware that average stock prices at Hawick auction show that between 1989 and 1990 the price of black-faced warranted ewes fell by no less than £5—a 20 per cent. fall in one year. The price last year was lower than it was in 1984. That shows the difficulties that the farming community has been facing.
  Difficulties have arisen because farmers have switched to Iamb from beef. My hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well that beef has been more difficult to sell than lamb in the recent past, although I eat beef—and British beef to boot—and I understand that we in the midlands are eating beef once again.
  I say to the House what I have said to my family face to face—that, when manufacturers find that there is no market for their products, they also find that there is no
  1086
  intervention fund to buy their surplus products. The result is that they go out of business. I am not suggesting that farmers should go out of business, but farmers are not alone in experiencing difficulties.
  I understand that the rate for hill ewes has increased much more than that for upland ewes. I am told that upland ewes demand rather more tending than hill ewes. I shall be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that observation.
  There is a strong case for incentives to keep hill farmers on the hills. Farmers are best conservators in Britain, and rural communities add enormously to our heritage. Future generations will not forgive us if we allow ourselves to be steamrollered by inefficient continental farmers into operating a regime in the United Kingdom which has the effect of destroying important rural communities and the contribution that they have to make to our national life.
  11.39 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertston: That was a speech from an hon. Member who expects to have to return to the hills after the next general election. I, too, have the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) as my Member of Parliament. We all have crosses to bear in this life, and he is mine.
  Before I go any further, I should perhaps declare an interest in a hill farm in the Lammermuirs. I also represent several hill farmers in the Lammermuir hills. I confirm what has been said by members of all parties who have taken part in the debate. Beyond any shadow of doubt, there is a crisis in the economy of the hill and upland areas throughout the United Kingdom
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman should declare his interest.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I have declared an interest. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has caught my attention. I was fascinated when he suggested that the Liberal Democrats would extend hill livestock compensatory allowances to Huntingdonshire. I am not sure whether he knows what is the highest point in Huntingdonshire, but if his party thinks that it will win Huntingdonshire by promising hill livestock compensatory allowances to its farmers, they have problems. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery should contain himself just now.
  There is a crisis in the economy of the hills and uplands. The Minister stands accused of a con trick. The Government say that they are increasing the allowances but, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made abundantly clear, they are taking the money away with the other hand by applying the stocking rate restrictions. To make things worse, there has been a significant delay in making the payments. Delay in making payments to an industry which is facing such severe problems is bad news. It is a heavily indebted industry, and interest rates are high.
  I wonder what proportion of the money will go straight to the banks when it is eventually paid. So many of the hill farmers are heavily indebted, and they will simply use the money to reduce their overdrafts. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to the special problem in the Ribble valley area. Perhaps one way of overcoming the problem of the delay would be for the English National Farmers Union to bring forward its

  1087
  annual general meeting and compel the Minister of Agriculture to come along and make his statement a little earlier. Perhaps farmers would get their money a little sooner. I offer that merely as a suggestion.
  The allowances are just another chapter in a shameful history of neglect of rural Britain by the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said, rural communities throughout the United Kingdom are being affected. The Government's neglect of the industry is shameful. Every time that I take part in an agriculture debate, I remind the House and the farming industry that many farmers say that they always do better under a Labour Government. That has been true, and it will be true again shortly.
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Richard Livsey: I wish to make only a few points and to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about stocking rates and the capping of the total amount of HLCA available at £62·48 and the other figures that he mentioned. There is no doubt that, in one sense, the Minister has misled us here this evening. He said that the amount had been fixed for environmental reasons, and that keeping the figure down would have a good environmental impact. The problem is that farmers are not being given an environmental payment in order to make up for that level of capping.
  If the Minister is not prepared to increase the amount to the maximum of £77, he should compensate farmers for the difference between the two amounts, which by my arithmetic would be £15 per hectare, to conserve the environment. The Minister cannot have it both ways: by not allowing the £15 per hectare, he is creating an immense social problem in the uplands. My constituency is more akin to a continent than a constituency. It is 92 miles long. We have 16 ewes for every person in the constituency. We depend very much on our hill livestock compensatory payments. Yet farmers are being capped and are not being compensated for looking after the environment.
  As we know, the upland farmers are the best conservationists in the country. The single sons of hill farmers in my constituency can no longer survive on the meagre pittance being provided. The recent figures from Aberystwyth in the farm management survey show that Welsh upland farms of 175 acres or less have an income of £2,000 a year, and farms of 175-plus acres have £4,000 a year. No one can live on such incomes. That is equal to a crisis.
  The crisis is compounded by the fact that, in Wales in the last two years, farm incomes have dropped by 41 per cent.; they have nearly halved. The Secretary of State for Wales said in the Welsh Grand Committee last week that HLCAs amounted to £37 million. The drop of 41 per cent. in incomes equals £32 million. We are on the road to nowhere. We are on the road to depopulation, back to the 1920s and 1930s, with no young people left in the upland areas.
  The Government must have a coherent policy. Of course we need to stay within the EC budget, but that is not the point. We need major reforms. We may have to scrap intervention and bring back deficiency payments to get the product on to the market, so that the consumer can
  1088
  buy it at a reduced price. We have to do something about half the budget that does not get to farmers. We must put more of that money back into farmers' pockets.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Curry: Much passion has been raised in the debate. I understand that. I represent hill farmers myself and I share the concerns of Opposition Members and of my hon. Friends. None of us, I hope, will compete in our concern for upland farmers, both in their role as producers and in their role as guardians of the countryside. The difference is that we have responsibility for government. We also have to act within a budget. There is no way out of that; we cannot escape from it. The budget is laid down in the Community, and the House, in general terms, subscribes to it. We cannot get away from it by saying that we will pretend that disciplines do not exist. The Liberal Democrats want to keep multiplying the expenditure. Everything they said in the debate would result in a multiplication of agriculture expenditure.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that the increase is inadequate. Everybody would like more, but we have to allocate the resources. In the early years to which he referred, the market delivered a reasonable livelihood because it was a time of rapid expansion, particularly in exports. Prices were buoyant. The point of the scheme is to compensate for the disadvantaged character of the neighbourhood. It is not designed specifically as a mechanism to compensate for shortfalls in the marketplace. It is different from a price support mechanism, which means that we have spent a fortune intervening on beef.
  The hon. Gentleman knows why there has been a delay. We could not send the forms out earlier because we could not give the instructions and the guidance to go with them until we sorted out the problem about how the scheme would apply. I regret that. It was a nuisance. It has been a pain for everybody, but we had to face that difficulty. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) paid advances. It was not a happy experience. One reason that we are not doing it again is that it was such a difficult experience. It took so long to complete the payments that some farmers were longer getting the total payment than they would have been if we had not paid advances.
  I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's encounter with Mr. Dinsdale. When I am in that part of the world tomorrow, I shall try to find Mr. Dinsdale, because I am anxious to hear from him a more precise account of the conversation than the hon. Member for South Shields was willing to give. I want to know whether the hon. Gentleman told Mr. Dinsdale that he would pay more on the HLCAs as they stand. That is the question before us. Would he pay more as they stand—or was he going to present Mr. Dinsdale with a marvellous bran tub of environmental measures and invite him to plunge in his arm, the idea being that every farmer would come out with a prize labelled as an environmental payment?
  It is easy to say that we should pay farmers to look after the environment. In my constituency and that of many hon. Members, it is difficult to see what else farmers could do in terms of good husbandry. We have already said that farmers look after the environment. If we were to pay farmers for what they are already doing, we should need to

  1089
  define that payment precisely in terms of its budget and its objectives. We shall undertake that process, but it is no policy simply to say, "We shall not tell you whether you will get any more under existing policies; we shall invent something else that may or may not serve as a pretext to pay more."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a characteristic speech, and challenged me to give the full facts. To avoid being so accused again, let me make it absolutely clear that we have not increased the maximum amount payable per hectare—it is set at £62·48 in the severely disadvantaged areas and at £46·86 in the disadvantaged areas. We have held payments at those levels because, if we have limited resources, we choose not to give them to farmers stocking at the highest densities. I acknowledge that some farmers will not receive any increased payment. We will give resources to those who do not stock at the highest densities. That will increase commensurately the headage payments available to those farmers.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) must make up his mind about whether the Liberal Democrats will live within the budgetary framework of the Community.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Of course.
  Mr. Curry: Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer that question. He said that his party would invent all sorts of super new policies. Here and now the budget has overrun and we are faced with proposals from Mr. MacSharry which we must tackle. On Monday, we must start to debate those proposals. I want to know whether we have the support of the Liberal Democrats for the budgetary guideline we issued. The majority of the House applauded that guideline. Those who did not said that it was inadequate. We had to bring agriculture expenditure under some sort of control——
  Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: No, I gave way generously before.
  We are all agreed that we had to have some type of budgetary discipline, but now it comes to the test are we to say, "Well, let's not bother for the moment"?
  Mr. Wallace rose——
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has had his say. I deliberately limited my remarks to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister is afraid to give way.
  Mr. Curry: Certainly not, but I shall not be goaded. The hon. Gentleman can sit and make gestures to his heart's content, but he will not influence me.
  The Liberal Democrats have not answered the question about what they would do about the budgetary restraints which, whether we like them or not, exist.
  1090
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) mentioned some of the fundamental problems—the current surplus, the need to change the common agricultural policy and the MacSharry proposals. I deliberately refrained from embarking on those proposals as they are not the subject of the debate and we all had our say on them some time ago. If pressed, however, I can tell the House that our position on them has not changed. We do not find them acceptable, particularly as they do not take us towards the marketplace. Rather, they do the opposite. I do not believe that farmers want to be taken on a magical mystery tour that takes them further and further away from that marketplace. That is not the answer to the agriculture crisis.
  We already have a surplus, which is hanging over the market. Many Opposition Members are willing to say how much agriculture policy costs the average family per week or per month. They claim that we must bring it under control, but at the same time they say that more money should be directed at farmers. One must make up one's mind what one wants in this world. We cannot have it both ways. We must tackle the problem.
  Hon. Members want to know why the Government do not pay the maximum allowance permitted under the Community regulations. The answer is simple—money. If we were to pay at the maximum, we estimate that that would be equivalent to an extra £60 million of public expenditure. We do not believe that it would be justifiable to pay that in present circumstances. If the hon. Member for South Shields is saying that he would pay it, I am interested to clock up the expenditure to which he will commit his party. I am willing to add that to my running count of the pledges that have been made by at least half the members of the Labour party and give the information to the other Labour party members who say that they will exercise restraint in budgetary matters when their party comes to power, in that unlikely event.
  I can answer precisely one question asked by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). In Northern Ireland it is hoped and intended that 85 per cent. will be paid by the end of April. That is the target figure for Northern Ireland and the Department officials are geared up to do that. We must not forget that there are 65,000 claimants and that there is much work to do. We must undertake the process properly. We cannot simply act and hope, afterwards, that we got it right because the possibilities for fraud and inaccuracy are too great.
  We support farmers. We have shown that we support farmers. We have introduced a raft of measures in favour of farmers. The Government will not stand accused of failing them. The farmers do not believe that, and I commend the regulations to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

  Oldchurch Hospital, Romford
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  11.55 pm
  Sir Michael Neubert: I have the great good fortune to raise for debate tonight the subject of Oldchurch hospital in my constituency. At a meeting of the Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authority tomorrow, a decision will be taken that could be critical for the hospital's future. The authority has proposed that, in the longer term, our district should be served by one general hospital on a single site at Harold Wood in the neighbouring constituency of Upminster. To his credit, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who unfortunately cannot be here tonight, is as opposed to the proposal as am I and my other Havering colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) who, within the short time allowed, and subject to catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, will contribute later.
  The hon. Members for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) are also very much opposed to the proposal, because large numbers of their constituents look to Oldchurch hospital for their medical treatment. Of the six hon. Members who represent the district, only my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) is other than categorical in his condemnation of the proposal. The majority of his constituents live closer to Harold Wood than to Oldchurch hospital.
  It could be said that the proposal has few friends. During the consultation period, which expired at the end of January, the community health council, the London boroughs of Havering and of Barking and Dagenham, trade unions, doctors, patients, other organisations and members of the public have been loud in their disapproval.
  The purpose of tonight's short debate is twofold: first, to bring home to the Minister, whose presence at this late hour is much appreciated, the strong feelings of people in the district on the proposal; secondly, to take a last opportunity, at the eleventh hour, to ensure that the health authority's decision tomorrow reflects the widespread opposition to the proposal. It would make a mockery of consultation were such a universal thumbs-down to be disregarded.
  The reasons for the hostility of the public to the proposal are relatively straightforward. The Barking, Havering and Brentwood district is one of the largest in the country; from memory, I believe that it is the largest in London. It serves a population of 453,000 people. The Barking and Dagenham end of that district has an above average incidence of illness and a degree of social deprivation. In general terms, the population there has a high morbidity and a low mobility.
  The combination of those two factors makes the prospect of people there having to go another four or five miles for hospital treatment unacceptable to them arid to many others. Such a distance may seem insignificant to people who live in country areas, but in highly populated urban areas it surely makes sense to provide services that are as close as possible to the people. That certainly holds true when the densest population coincides with the greatest need.
  In seeking the retention of Oldchurch hospital, I am not speaking only for my constituents. However, I strongly believe that services should be local. Excellence is not the
  1092
  only criterion; convenience and accessibility are also important, and the right balance must be struck. Contrived formulas and artificial weightings have been devised to lead to the conclusion that there should be only one general hospital on a single site in our district. That is being challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and me.
  The North East Thames regional health authority intends by strategic decision to approve a new district general hospital just across the western boundary in the neighbouring district of Goodmayes. That seems to pre-empt the opinion of people in our area about the provision of local hospital services. That opinion can broadly be summed up by saying that they would like to retain Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospital.
  Oldchurch hospital is a Victorian workhouse-type hospital, but it provides a wide range of services, including regional specialties, to my constituents and to many other people in the area. It has attracted dedicated, high-calibre specialists who have been able to benefit from the interdisciplinary contacts that are established at Oldchurch. Despite being under constant threat from two quarters, they have engaged in many innovative and imaginative ventures. It is surprising that the success and popularity of the hospital should be so consistently challenged.
  The first threat is from the London teaching hospitals, which resent the pretensions of Oldchurch hospital and would like to have its patients to boost their depopulated clinics. The second threat is from regional administrators, who cannot accept what they see as inadequate buildings and a cramped location but would prefer a brand new extension development to modern standards on a green field site. However, that would be at the expense of convenience and accessibility. In spite of those threats, Oldchurch hospital has prospered.
  As it is just past midnight, I can announce that it is 17 years ago today that I entered the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is ironic that much of my time here has been spent in fighting threats to this much-loved institution in my constituency. There have been two proposals to close the neurosurgical unit, and two proposals to close the radiotherapy unit. On each occasion, a campaign was mounted to save the units. Now it is proposed that the whole hospital be closed, and that is a matter for regret.
  I have received very few complaints about the treatment of patients at Oldchurch or about the standards of medical treatment or nursing. On the contrary, the vast majority of the complaints that I receive concern the fact that people cannot get an appointment or treatment soon enough. One imagines that that situation would not be improved by the closure of the hospital. Our case is that the hospital should certainly be allowed to continue its present service to the people of the area.
  It is astonishing that, despite all the threats, the hospital's spirit is undiminished, and its confidence in its own future unflagging. Oldchurch has expressed an interest in achieving the status of a self-governing trust, and the Secretary of State has given approval for the further preparation of its plans. We must hope that the future will lie in that direction. In the meantime, we face the proposal that the hospital be closed, and the services provided on a single site elsewhere. As I have explained, that is not acceptable, either to the majority of Members of this House or to the majority of people in my area.

  1093
  Our hope must be that the authority that runs hospital services in the area will take account of those views before making any decision. What the people in my constituency want is treatment of a good standard—not necessarily the very best—provided within a reasonable distance of their homes. Oldchurch hospital has provided such treatment in the past, and continues to do so, and any proposal that it should not be allowed to do so in the future will be vigorously and rightly resisted.
  12.6 am
  Mr. Robin Squire: As in the past, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has presented a sterling and forthright case in defence of Oldchurch hospital. I know he will agree that it is sad that this is not the first time we have had to defend that excellent hospital, which so many local people support in the most practical way possible—by going there for operations and medical treatment. It seems to me that that is the single most telling and lasting tribute to the hospital. It is sad that, whatever the structure of the health service, we have from time to time to put to Ministers points in defence of the hospital.
  My hon. Friend sketched the background very well, and I do not want to be repetitious. However, I should like, in the short time available, to stress the breadth of opposition to this proposal. I shall do so in no particular order. Let me kick off with extracts from a letter from Mr. MacLellan, a senior consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Oldchurch hospital, to the services planning manager of the health authority. I think that the extracts, short though they are, will give the flavour. Mr. MacLellan says:
  "The comments that you have made confirm in my mind the clearly held impression that the statistics prepared in your document 'A Blueprint for Better Health Care' are an attempt to give scientific or pseudo-scientific validation for a completely bogus exercise in health care planning.
  No objective data has been collected about mortality or morbidity related to the clinical services in Harold Wood or Oldchurch ….
  While there were representatives of both acute units at the meetings that gave rise to this document, these representatives were not briefed by individual departments within either hospital to speak on their behalf. No representatives of the trauma and orthopaedic service at Oldchurch were present, and since we carry the bulk of the trauma workload for the district it seems extraordinary that you believe yourself to be in any position to make judgments about quality of service at our site as compared with any of the other sites."
  As that was written by a consultant at the hospital, it might be said to be predictable. As has been said in other contexts over the years, "He would say that, wouldn't he?" Nonetheless, it is worth recording.
  I turn now the Barking and Havering family health service authority, which has taken the trouble to submit its own formal comments, such is its concern at the nature of the document. Again, my hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased to know that I intend to be brief. It states:
  "No analysis of the need for secondary care services is provided. The document gives the appearance of a provider not needs led plan, concentrating reasons for change as it does on buildings and management problems. A needs based analysis might have significantly influenced the weighting in favour of a more accessible site in the district. The document did not include an analysis of the impact of the proposals on primary and community care. It is the FHSA opinion that these will be substantial."
  Under the heading "Conclusion", the document states:
  1094
  "The document does not provide information on developments in community support services that will be essential if the services are centralised irrespective of the site. A substantial development is needed to support the existing services. The FHSA is concerned by the lack of analysis of the impact on primary health care services. The planning of a new hospital provides major opportunities to consider the best mix of services that are needed to ensure optimum health of the population."
  As it rightly says:
  "This cannot be done by looking at the hospital services alone."
  What we have is an isolated discussion document looking purely at the physical structures, without looking at the way in which health should logically develop over the next 10 years. It is worth highlighting the fact that both the major local authorities in the area—the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London borough of Havering—have produced documents setting out precisely why the document is a bad one. In particular, Havering stresses that, for many people in Havering, let alone in Barking and Dagenham, to site a hospital at Harold Wood at the eastern end of the district health authority can only provide major problems for many of the patients who would need to get there.
  Word has reached me during the past couple of days of concern at Oldchurch hospital that there is to be a review by the district health authority of the acute units, and that a possible management restructuring is in the air which, if it proceeds—no consultation is required for that—would produce one overall unit amid great fears that Oldchurch and Rush Green hospitals would be run down, presumably for the general benefit of Harold Wood. That is not the way to proceed.
  I ask the Minister not only to deal with our initial fears, but to consider carefully whether a telephone call tomorrow morning to the district health authority, to tell it to desist from this unnecessary, irrelevant and expensive exercise, would not save a considerable sum of money for the health authority.
  12.12 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) are to be congratulated on raising this subject this evening on behalf of their constituents, and on delivering to the House a clear message that no one reading this debate could have any reason to misunderstand. It is no more than I would have expected from my hon. Friends, both of whom have been colleagues for a long time and co-campaigners in various campaigns.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romford was a senior, experienced and distinguished Whip when I first joined the Whips Office three and a half years ago. He used to have a notice by his desk which said, "This year Romford, next year the world," or words to that effect. This evening, he has given the House a demonstration of the effectiveness of his thinking on behalf of his constituents and of his campaign over 17 years to ensure that the importance of Oldchurch hospital in the health care of his constituents is understood by those who need to know.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject today, because not only has that allowed him to celebrate his 17 years in Parliament by continuing to campaign on behalf of his constituents; it has also allowed him to ensure

  1095
  that the members of the health authority go to their meeting tomorrow with his words and those of our hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch ringing in their ears.
  They thought that the consultation process ended on 31 January, and this will come as a reminder of the views of my hon. Friends, both of whom have written to the health authority to express their views formally. Their speeches this evening should have served to dispel any remaining doubt in the minds of members of the health authority.
  This evening's debate allows me to say that I am sorry that I was unable to fulfil the engagement that I had a few weeks ago in my hon. Friend's constituency, I think at the hospital. I hope that it will be possible to reinstate that. I have no doubt that if it is reinstated the message that my hon. Friends have brought to the House this evening will once again be reinforced.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch suggested that I could spend some time tomorrow morning on the telephone communicating further the messages of my hon. Friends and adding to it a message of my own that the health authority should not proceed tomorrow with the proposal that we are discussing. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I shall not be doing that, not because there are no circumstances in which I might find it in myself to agree with my hon. Friend but because—this is an important principle—the only good way to manage an organisation which employs a million people and absorbs £30 billion of public expenditure is through a management structure, within which we encourage management decisions to be taken as far down the line as is practicable.
  We run a delegated system of management, and if that policy is to have real effect, it is important that managers are encouraged to make real decisions and to carry responsibility for them without feeling that their every decision is subject to Ministers looking over their shoulder and jogging their elbows. Therefore, I shall not be ringing the health authority tomorrow morning to communicate the message that my hon. Friends would understandably wish me to.
  Nor am I in a position this evening to be able to make clear what the Government's attitude would be if in certain circumstances the proposal ended on a Minister's desk. I will explain briefly why that is. I have explained the importance that we attach to the system of delegated management: the result of that is that a decision of this nature ends up on a Minister's desk only if it has proved impossible for the different agencies within the health authority locally to reach agreement on how the proposal should proceed.
  If, therefore, the health authority were to confirm its proposal to concentrate health care on the Harold Wood site, it would be for the CHC to decide whether it wished to lodge its firm opposition to that proposal. If the CHC were to take that course, the disagreement between the health authority and the CHC would go to the regional health authority for a further opinion. If the regional health authority were to support the district health authority but the CHC maintained its opposition to the united view of the regional and district authorities, the proposal would come to a Minister for a decision.
  I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand that, if a Minister had to make a decision between the CHC proposal and the management proposal, he would want to
  1096
  do so without having a commitment given in the House hanging around his neck, making it impossible for him to approach the subject with an open mind, as he should.
  I give my hon. Friends the clear undertaking that, if it proved impossible for the various agencies that I have described to reach a decision locally, I would go to considerable trouble to ensure that the responsible Minister fully understood the concerns of my hon. Friends' constituents as well as the arguments advanced by the health authority. Therefore, I am not able to describe precisely this evening how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would use his discretion if the proposal came before him for a decision.
  I can comment on one or two of my hon. Friends' comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford was particularly concerned that the convenience and accessibility of health care is considered a relevant consideration and that the creation of ivory towers is not a sufficient argument by itself to support a particular policy. I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we agree. We run the health service for the benefit of its patients, not for that of its doctors—still less for the benefit of the academicians. Convenience and accessibility are important factors in deciding the pattern of health care in any locality.
  My hon. Friend stressed the dangers that are attached to grandiose ambitions, as opposed to the more humdrum development of health care in a particular locality. It is one of the sins of traditional health service management that it has regarded capital as a free good. It is to address the problem of excessively grandiose schemes not firmly based in local needs that we are introducing from 1 April the principle of capital charging, which will ensure that any addition to the capital stock of a particular district is recognised to be the cost that it is, so that any authority planning to absorb more capital in the provision of health care will take account of the capital, as well as revenue cost, that it incurs from its investment decisions. I hope that will reduce the attractiveness of highly capital-intensive solutions to particular local problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch stressed the importance that he attaches to a firmly based local assessment of health needs in planning for the future. He quoted in support the views of the local FHSA. Again, not only do I agree, but that is one of the basic propositions on which the Government's reforms from 1 April are founded. My hon. Friends should need no reassurance from me, because the definition of local health need and the use of the contracting system to design a pattern of provision that will meet identified local health needs is written into the statute for which all three of us voted last year. Those are the criteria that management will increasingly use in their areas.
  I will enter a caveat by way of balance, and stress that, as we think about the development of provision over the health service as a whole, we must acknowledge that a constant factor is the declining need for acute beds. Modern medicine allows us to treat more patients, more quickly, with fewer acute beds. Merely because traditional medicine needed 500 or 600 beds in a particular locality, that does not mean that, in the next 10 years, we shall continue to need the same level of acute bed provision. Many conditions that once required three weeks' hospital stay can now be treated either on a day case basis, or without the need for surgery or hospitalisation at all. That

  1097
  must be borne in mind, particularly when considering major capital investment that will commit the health service to capital costs for a generation ahead.
  Another factor that makes more complex the situation in which my hon. Friends' constituents find themselves is that both Old Church and Harold Wood hospitals are preparing applications for trust status. They are expected
  1098
  by the end of April, and I should emphasise that nothing that is happening as a result of the consultation process launched by the district health authority can limit the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to accept either or both those applications or——
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gold and Silver
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals have been received from the EC concerning the assay of gold and silver in the United Kingdom; and what steps he is taking to preserve the standards and stamping system that prevails in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  The EC Commission has indicated that it does not intend to propose legislation to harmonise the various systems of testing and marking precious metals in the member states and to make assaying compulsory.

  It will nonetheless be necessary at some stage to establish a common regime for precious metals in the European Community and I believe that it is essential for the effective functioning of the single market and for consumer protection purposes that some form of compulsory marking of precious metals is retained. It will be our objective to ensure this in any future consideration of this matter within the European Community.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a list of the figures for inward investment projects involving(a) United Kingdom firms from outside the region and (b) international firms, for each region in each year from 1976 to 1990, inclusive.

  Mr. Leigh
  I regret that much of the information the hon. Gentleman has requested is only available at disproportionate cost. However, figures detailing the number of inward investment projects from overseas are available although only from 1979 to 1989. The table sets out the number of investment decisions known to the Invest in Britain Bureau for the calendar years 1979 to 1989 and the associated jobs for the United Kingdom by region.

  The decisions recorded include the establishment of new business, expansion or acquisition of an existing business and involvement in joint venture. The figures are based on information provided by the companies themselves at the time of the investment and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Number of inward investment decisions: regional breakdown

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  Scotland

  1979

  28

  2,757

  NA

  2,757

  (15·3)

  (19·3)

  NA

  (19·3)

  1980

  31

  4,474

  NA

  4,474

  (20·0)

  (24·0)

  NA

  (24·0)

  1981

  28

  5,756

  NA

  5,756

  (21·0)

  (35·1)

  NA

  (35·1)

  1982

  28

  2,258

  NA

  2,258

  482

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  (21·0)

  (21·4)

  NA

  (21·4)

  1983

  49

  5,135

  3,432

  8,567

  (20·8)

  (33·0)

  (22·5)

  (27·8)

  1984

  74

  8,761

  1,463

  10,224

  (22·6)

  (32·3)

  (7·6)

  (22·0)

  1985

  57

  4,971

  2,922

  7,893

  (15·2)

  (19·4)

  (15·6)

  (17·8)

  1986

  36

  1,881

  607

  2,488

  (10·6)

  (11·6)

  (5·6)

  (9·2)

  1987

  31

  3,704

  2,061

  5,765

  (9·5)

  (17·1)

  (10·2)

  (13·7)

  1988

  58

  5,429

  1,978

  7,407

  (16·5)

  (19·6)

  (10·4)

  (15·3)

  1989

  34

  4,551

  645

  5,196

  (10·4)

  (14·8)

  (2·4)

  (9·0)

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  Wales

  1979

  18

  854

  NA

  854

  (9·8)

  (6·0)

  NA

  (6·0)

  1980

  16

  3,332

  NA

  3,332

  (10·3)

  (17·9)

  NA

  (47·9)

  1981

  20

  1,986

  NA

  1,986

  (15·0)

  (12·1)

  NA

  (12·1)

  1982

  17

  901

  NA

  901

  (12·8)

  (8·6)

  NA

  (8·6)

  1983

  31

  2,116

  1,913

  4,029

  (13·1)

  (13·6)

  (12·5)

  (13·1)

  1984

  42

  3,958

  5,015

  8,973

  (12·8)

  (14·6)

  (26·0)

  (19·3)

  1985

  45

  2,416

  1,350

  3,766

  (12·0)

  (9·4)

  (7·2)

  (8·5)

  1986

  49

  2,364

  2,232

  4,596

  (14·5)

  (14·5)

  (20·7)

  (17·0)

  1987

  58

  4,054

  877

  4,931

  (17·8)

  (18·7)

  (4·3)

  (11·8)

  1988

  56

  6,006

  2,085

  8,091

  (15·9)

  (21·7)

  (11·0)

  (17·4)

  1989

  42

  3,564

  2,050

  5,614

  (12·7)

  (11·6)

  (7·2)

  (7·0)

  Northern Ireland

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  1979

  18

  2,794

  NA

  2,794

  (9·8)

  (19·5)

  NA

  (19·5)

  1980

  20

  2,760

  NA

  2,760

  (12·9)

  (14·8)

  NA

  (14·8)

  1981

  15

  2,429

  NA

  2,429

  11·3)

  (14·8)

  NA

  (14·8)

  1982

  6

  1,893

  NA

  1,893

  (4·5)

  (18·0)

  NA

  (18·0)

  1983

  11

  548

  1,192

  1,740

  (4·7)

  (3·5)

  (7·8)

  (5·6)

  1984

  27

  2,256

  2,876

  5,132

  (8·2)

  (8·3)

  (14·9)

  (11·1)

  1985

  22

  771

  1,424

  2,195

  (5·9)

  (3·0)

  (7·6)

  (5·0)

  1986

  18

  693

  1,722

  2,415

  (5·3)

  (4·3)

  (16·0)

  (8·9)

  1987

  17

  1,135

  1,341

  2,486

  (5·2)

  (5·2)

  (6·6)

  (5·9)

  1988

  22

  2,610

  916

  3,526

  (6·3)

  (9·4)

  (5·0)

  (7·7)

  1989

  17

  1,187

  8,558

  9,745

  (5·2)

  (3·9)

  (32·0)

  (17·0)

  483

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  North East

  1979

  21

  1,466

  NA

  1,466

  (11·5)

  (10·2)

  NA

  (10·2)

  1980

  19

  2,923

  NA

  2,923

  (12·3)

  (15·7)

  NA

  (15·7)

  1981

  14

  1,021

  NA

  1,021

  (10·5)

  (6·2)

  NA

  (6·2)

  1982

  15

  539

  NA

  539

  (11·3)

  (5·1)

  NA

  (5·1)

  1983

  20

  1,066

  720

  1,786

  (8·5)

  (6·9)

  (4·7)

  (5·8)

  1984

  29

  4,589

  230

  4,819

  (8·8)

  (16·9)

  (1·2)

  (10·4)

  1985

  26

  1,987

  1,572

  3,559

  (6·9)

  (7·8)

  (8·4)

  (8·0)

  1986

  30

  1,581

  1,158

  2,739

  (8·8)

  (9·7)

  (10·8)

  (10·1)

  1987

  31

  3,491

  852

  4,343

  (9·5)

  (16·1)

  (4·2)

  (10·4)

  1988

  22

  2,041

  31

  2,072

  (6·3)

  (7·4)

  (0·2)

  (4·4)

  1989

  46

  4,495

  1,438

  5,933

  (14·1)

  (14·6)

  (5·4)

  (10·3)

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  North West

  1979

  9

  379

  NA

  379

  (4·9)

  (2·6)

  NA

  (2·6)

  1980

  15

  913

  NA

  913

  (9·7)

  (4·9)

  NA

  (4·9)

  1981

  12

  1,177

  NA

  1,177

  (9·0)

  (7·2)

  NA

  (7·2)

  1982

  14

  1,291

  NA

  1,291

  (10·5)

  (12·3)

  NA

  (12·3)

  1983

  22

  709

  1,114

  1,823

  (9·3)

  (4·6)

  (7·3)

  (5·9)

  1984

  40

  1,135

  1,911

  3,046

  (12·2)

  (4·2)

  (9·9)

  (6·6)

  1985

  28

  2,271

  1,378

  3,649

  (7·5)

  (8·9)

  (7·4)

  (8·2)

  1986

  34

  1,400

  1,389

  2,789

  (10·0)

  (8·6)

  (12·9)

  (10·3)

  1987

  28

  1,323

  4,896

  6,219

  (8·6)

  (6·1)

  (24·1)

  (14·1)

  1988

  30

  1,763

  3,844

  5,607

  (8·>5)

  (6·4)

  (17·7)

  (10·9)

  1989

  52

  2,646

  4,538

  7,184

  (15·9)

  (8·6)

  (17·0)

  (12·5)

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  1979

  27

  1,176

  NA

  1,176

  (14·8)

  (8·2)

  NA

  (8·2)

  1980

  17

  890

  NA

  890

  (11·0)

  (4·8)

  NA

  (4·8)

  1981

  6

  167

  NA

  167

  (4·5)

  (1·0)

  NA

  (1·0)

  1982

  7

  104

  NA

  104

  (5·3)

  (0·9)

  NA

  (1·0)

  1983

  10

  345

  502

  847

  (4·2)

  (2·2)

  (3·3)

  (2·7)

  1984

  7

  119

  860

  979

  (2·1)

  (0·4)

  (4·5)

  (2·1)

  1985

  16

  2,263

  2,969

  5,232

  (4·3)

  (8·8)

  (05·9)

  (11·8)

  1986

  11

  158

  57

  215

  (3·2)

  (0·9)

  (0·5)

  (0·7)

  1987

  23

  1,147

  961

  2,108

  (7·1)

  (5·3)

  (4·7)

  (5·0)

  1988

  23

  1,790

  380

  2,170

  (5·7)

  (6·4)

  (2·1)

  (4·7)

  484

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  1989

  11

  600

  1,100

  1,700

  (3·4)

  (1·9)

  (4·1)

  (3·0)

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  West Midlands

  1979

  11

  864

  NA

  864

  (6·0)

  (6·0)

  NA

  (6·0)

  1980

  3

  1,040

  NA

  1,040

  (1·9)

  (5·6)

  NA

  (5·6)

  1981

  7

  425

  NA

  425

  (5·3)

  (2·6)

  NA

  (2·6)

  1982

  1

  100

  NA

  100

  (0·7)

  (0·9)

  NA

  (0·9)

  1983

  13

  1,201

  3,179

  4,380

  (5·5)

  (7·7)

  (20·8)

  (14·2)

  1984

  14

  1,531

  5,240

  6,771

  (4·3)

  (5·6)

  (27·2)

  (14·6)

  1985

  63

  5,197

  1,375

  6,572

  (16·8)

  (20·3)

  (7·4)

  (14·8)

  1986

  74

  4,393

  1,899

  6,292

  (21·8)

  (27·0)

  (17·7)

  (23·3)

  1987

  59

  3,079

  2,271

  5,350

  (18·2)

  (14·2)

  (11·2)

  (12·8)

  1988

  69

  3,671

  7,840

  11,511

  (19·6)

  (13·3)

  (42·8)

  (25·0)

  1989

  87

  5,629

  7,035

  12,664

  (26·6)

  (18·3)

  (26·2)

  (22·0)

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  East Midlands

  1979

  15

  1,174

  NA

  1,174

  (8·2)

  (8·2)

  NA

  (8·2)

  1980

  5

  276

  NA

  276

  (3·2)

  (1·5)

  NA

  (1·5)

  1981

  8

  290

  NA

  290

  (6·0)

  (1·8)

  NA

  (1·8)

  1982

  13

  848

  NA

  848

  (9·8)

  (8·1)

  NA

  (8·1)

  1983

  12

  939

  80

  1,019

  (5·1)

  (6·0)

  (0·5)

  (3·3)

  1984

  11

  658

  303

  961

  (3·4)

  (2·4)

  (1·6)

  (2·1)

  1985

  19

  778

  0

  778

  (5·1)

  (3·0)

  (1·8)

  1986

  15

  557

  20

  577

  (4·4)

  (3·4)

  (0·1)

  (2·1)

  1987

  11

  456

  398

  854

  (3·4)

  (2·1)

  (2·0)

  (2·0)

  1988

  18

  1,139

  880

  2,019

  (5·2)

  (4·1)

  (4·8)

  (4·4)

  1989

  11

  4,073

  2,420

  6,783

  (3·3)

  (13·2)

  (9·0)

  (11·6)

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  South East

  1979

  23

  908

  NA

  908

  (12·6)

  (6·3)

  NA

  (6·3)

  1980

  23

  1,046

  NA

  1,046

  (14·8)

  (5·6)

  NA

  (5·6)

  1981

  15

  967

  NA

  967

  (11·3)

  (5·9)

  NA

  (5·9)

  1982

  25

  1,300

  NA

  1,300

  (18·8)

  (12·4)

  NA

  (12·4)

  1983

  59

  3,036

  2,667

  5,703

  (25·0)

  (19·5)

  (17·5)

  (18·5)

  1984

  70

  2,731

  810

  3,541

  (21·3)

  (10·1)

  (4·2)

  (7·6)

  1985

  84

  3,649

  5,712

  9,361

  (22·4)

  (14·3)

  (30·5)

  (21·1)

  485

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  1986

  60

  2,118

  1,148

  3,266

  (17·7)

  (13·0)

  (10·7)

  (12·1)

  1987

  55

  2,698

  599

  3,297

  (16·9)

  (12·5)

  (3·0)

  (7·9)

  1988

  46

  2,400

  983

  3,383

  (13·1)

  (8·7)

  (5·4)

  (7·1)

  1989

  21

  2,163

  610

  2,483

  (6·4)

  (7·0)

  (2·3)

  (4·3)

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  South West

  1979

  13

  1,938

  NA

  1938

  (7·1)

  (13·5)

  NA

  (13·5)

  1980

  6

  1,008

  NA

  1,008

  (3·9)

  (5·4)

  NA

  (5·4)

  1981

  8

  2,199

  NA

  2,199

  (6·0)

  (13·4)

  NA

  (13·4)

  1982

  7

  1,295

  NA

  1,295

  (5·3)

  (12·3)

  NA

  (12·3)

  1983

  9

  451

  458

  909

  (3·8)

  (2·9)

  (3·0)

  (2·9)

  1984

  14

  1,364

  586

  1,950

  (4·3)

  (5·0)

  (3·0)

  (4·2)

  1985

  15

  1,281

  19

  1,300

  (4·0)

  (5·0)

  (0·1)

  (2·9)

  1986

  12

  1,129

  528

  1,657

  (3·5)

  (6·9)

  (4·9)

  (6·1)

  1987

  11

  564

  328

  892

  (3·4)

  (2·6)

  (1·6)

  (2·1)

  1988

  5

  479

  0

  479

  (1·4)

  (1·7)

  (0)

  (1·0)

  1989

  8

  1,848

  40

  1,888

  (2·4)

  (6·0)

  (0·15)

  (3·3)

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  United Kingdom not specified

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  183

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  155

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  133

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  133

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  1

  —

  5,700

  5,700

  (0·3)

  —

  (28·1)

  (13·6)

  1988

  3

  325

  0

  325

  (0·9)

  (1·2)

  (0)

  (0·7)

  1989

  1

  0

  0

  0

  (0·3)

  (0)

  (0)

  (0)

  Total United Kingdom

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  1979

  14,310

  NA

  NA

  14,310

  1980

  18,662

  NA

  NA

  18,662

  1981

  16,417

  NA

  NA

  16,417

  1982

  10,529

  NA

  NA

  10,529

  1983

  236

  15,546

  15,257

  30,803

  1984

  328

  27,102

  19,294

  46,396

  1985

  375

  25,584

  18,721

  44,305

  1986

  339

  16,274

  10,760

  27,034

  486

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total jobs (NJ+SJ)

  1987

  325

  21,651

  20,284

  41,935

  1988

  352

  27,653

  18,937

  46,590

  1989

  330

  30,756

  28,434

  59,190

  P = Number of projects

  NJ = New jobs

  SJ = Safeguard jobs

  Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region.

  These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves.

  The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the figures for injuries caused by fireworks for each year from 1986 to 1990 in the same form as the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 21 March 1990,Official Report, columns 641–46; and if he will estimate the value of damage caused to domestic and commercial property by fireworks in each of those years.

  Mr. Leigh
  It is my intention to publish the figures for injuries caused by fireworks for each year from 1986 to 1990 in a similar form to that given last year. My Department does not keep statistics on the value of damage caused to property by fireworks.

  Supergun
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade a copy of the transcript and video of the Thames Television programme "This Week" broadcast on 1 February concerning the alleged evasion of customs and export controls by parts of a supergun built for Iraq.

  Mr. Lilley
  I do not propose to obtain a copy of the transcript and video of the Thames Television "This Week" programme for the departmental library.

  Property Loans
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the Government's proposals for subordinate legislation in connection with the provisions under the Courts and Legal Services Act on the tying-in of services to residential property loans.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am today issuing a consultative document setting out the Government's proposals for the subordinate legislation required to bring into force the provisions in the courts and Legal Services Act on the tying-in of services to residential property loans. However, as the document explains and as was made clear during the passage of the Act, if the industry had a simpler way of avoiding tying-in by lenders which it could police adequately and which would provide for at least as much disclosure as the Act's provisions, the Government could be open to persuasion that bringing the relevant provisions into force would not be necessary.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the division of responsibility between the financial reporting review panel and his Department with regard to applications to the court for the revision of defective company accounts following the authorisation of the review panel for the purposes of section 245B of the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  It has been agreed with the financial reporting review panel that normally the panel will deal with the accounts of large public and private companies. The companies concerned are defined as public limited companies (PLCs) (except plcs which are subsidiaries in a small or medium-sized group), companies within a group headed by a PLC, and any company not qualifying as small or medium-sized as defined by section 247 of the Companies Act 1985 or of any company within a group which does not qualify as small or medium-sized as defined by section 249 of the Act. My Department will handle all other cases.

  The review panel will examine departures from the accounting provisions of the Companies Act 1985 whether or not they involve departures from accounting standards. The Department will remain responsible for all complaints relating to the directors' report and summary financial statements.

  Product Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest position in the Council of Ministers with regard to the European Community's product safety directive.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The Council of Ministers considered the proposed EC directive on general product safety at its meeting on 22 October 1990. Progress was made on some key issues but it was also clear that a number of significant problems still remained. The directive was therefore referred back to the council working group for further discussion. The Luxembourg Presidency is now considering how best to handle the continuing negotiations.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the other countries in the EC which are seeking to have food removed from the scope of the European Community's product safety directive.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: A number of member states have difficulties in accepting that food should be included in the proposed general product safety directive, at least as it is currently drafted. These include the United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands and Ireland. However, discussions are continuing to see if the safety of food can be adequately dealt with in a general safety directive.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's reasons for seeking to have food removed from the provisions of the European Community's product safety directive.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: In the negotiations on the proposed EC general product safety
  488
  directive, the United Kingdom has taken the view that, as drafted, there are particular features of food safety that are not adequately dealt with in a general duty affecting consumer products. There are already many directives which already apply to different aspects of food safety and more are under discussion. There is also concern that by applying a further layer of legislation to an already heavily regulated sector, there would be uncertainty and confusion without necessarily adding significantly to the protection afforded to consumers.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what protection there is for consumers who receive defective products from manufacturers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 26 February 1991]: The law provides a range of measures to protect consumers from defective or unsafe products. In some cases the action will be directed towards the original manufacturer, in others towards the distributor or retailer.

  Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 for traders who sell goods in the course of a business (usually the retailer) there is an implied condition that the goods must be of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose for which they are sold. Traders cannot avoid these obligations in their contracts with consumers. If goods are not of merchantable quality the buyer is entitled, if he acts in a reasonable time, to reject the goods and obtain a refund.

  Even if the buyer has accepted the goods, and no longer has a right to a refund, the buyer would still be entitled to claim damages for defects. The consumer may also be able to claim damages for any other loss resulting from the breach of contract, such as compensation for any injury caused by the defective product.

  People who are injured or have their personal property damaged by defective products may also be able to claim damages under the product liability provisions of part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In addition, as this Act did not replace the rights of individuals to use the tort of negligence to obtain damages from manufacturer, this option remains available to the consumer.

  Consumers are also protected from defective products that are unsafe by the consumer safety legislation in part II of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This establishes a strong legal framework to deal with unsafe consumer products and is enforced primarily by the trading standards department of local authorities. Anyone with a complaint about an unsafe product should contact their local office.

WALES

  Patients (Cross-infection)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate for each health authority in Wales the percentage of patients currently being treated in national health service hospitals for conditions that they contracted when they were previously in-patients at those hospitals through cross-infection.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Continuing Care Beds
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many continuing care beds have been available in Wales in each year from 1976.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information given in the following table relates to hospital beds in Wales designated for continuing care. However, some beds may have been used for continuing care but not designated as such.

  From 1 April 1989 continuing care beds cannot be identified separately centrally.

  Average daily available continuing care beds

  Daily average

  1976

  0·47

  1977

  4·67

  1978

  9·50

  1979

  8·33

  1980

  8·93

  1981

  16·50

  1982

  35·00

  1983

  34·46

  1984

  34·25

  1985

  33·67

  1986

  34·29

  1987

  36·57

  1988

  36·68

  Sea Trout
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total catch for sea trout in Wales in each year between 1985 and 1990; and how many were caught by(a) nets and (b) rod.

  National park committee

  Local farmers

  Nominated by Secretary of State

  Commercial or service industry sector in the immediate area

  Residents from the immediate area

  Brecon Beacons1

  3

  8

  3

  6

  Pembrokeshire Coast

  3

  6

  2

  4

  Snowdonia1

  2

  8

  5

  7

  Total

  8

  22

  10

  17

  1 There is one vacancy for Secretary of State's nominated members on each of these NPCs.

  Housing
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities concerning housing provision in rural Wales; and how many meetings he has had with representatives of elected councils to discuss this situation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Every local authority has opportunities throughout each year to inform me about housing provision in their area. Furthermore I hope soon to chair a meeting of the Welsh Housing Consultative Committee soon at which further representations about rural housing matters could be tabled.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates of official visits that the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State made to constituencies in Wales during the past 12 months; and for
  490
  Mr. David Hunt
  Reported catches of sea trout in the Welsh Region of the National Rivers Authority since 1985 are as follows:

  Year

  Rods

  Nets

  Total

  1985

  20,868

  5,097

  25,965

  1986

  21,308

  5,098

  26,406

  1987

  35,727

  4,878

  40,605

  1988

  30,685

  6,799

  37,484

  1989

  13,154

  6,468

  19,622

  1990

  1—

  3,795

  —

  1 Not yet available.

  National Parks
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many members there are on the management boards of each national park in Wales; and of these members how many are(a) local farmers, (b) members or representatives of public or state bodies who are contributing to the upkeep of the parks, (c) from the commercial or service industry sector in the immediate area and (d) residents from the immediate area.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are 27 members each on the national park committees (NPC) of Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia national parks and 18 members on the NPC of Pembrokeshire Coast national park. A third of the members are appointed by the Secretary of State and the other two thirds are elected members mainly of the relevant county councils with some district council representation. The information sought is held centrally only in relation to members nominated by the Secretary of State and is as follows:

  each visit those instances in which hon. and right hon. Members were not informed in writing, in advance, of such visits.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is standard practice for my Private Office to notify hon. and right hon. Members, in writing and in advance, of official visits to their constituencies by me or my ministerial colleagues.

  Welsh Office Ministers have made a very large number of visits to all constituencies in Wales over the past 12 months and the detailed information requested by the hon. Gentleman could only be provided at disproportionate use of my Private Office's time.

  If however, the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the circumstances of any particular instance, perhaps he would write to me.

  Farming
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to send out the basic hill livestock compensatory allowance claim forms so that herd and flock details can be completed and submitted at the earliest possible date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 25 February 1991.

  Accommodation for Young People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much accommodation has been specifically provided by each district council in Wales for(a) young single people under the age of 25 years and (b) young couples under the age of 25 years, in each year from 1977 onwards.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not held centrally.

  Tourism
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to amend the policy planning guidelines on the countryside and the rural economy to allow for limited and tasteful tourist developments on farms in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am reviewing planning policy guidance note No. 7 which describes the contribution that the planning system can make to the rural environment by balancing the requirements of development—including fostering the diversification of the rural economy—and the continuing need to protect the countryside.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received requesting the Wales Tourist Board to be allowed to market itself directly overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Thirteen since taking office on 4 May 1990.

  The Wales Tourist Board has commissioned a study intended to identify ways and means of improving the effectiveness of the overseas marketing of Wales, within the existing legal framework. Ministers will consider its findings very carefully.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the Wales Association of Community and Town Councils to discuss the planning applications appeal structure.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has not met representatives of the Wales Association of Community and Town Councils to discuss this matter.

  GCSE1

  German

  Italian

  Japanese

  Latin

  Spanish

  19872

  Candidates entered

  1,960

  108

  —

  399

  347

  O level grades A–E, CSE 1–5

  1,783

  101

  —

  360

  306

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to introduce a further right of appeal for town and community councils against Welsh Office decisions on planning applications when it is clear that the majority of citizens in a given town or community council area are opposed to the original planning applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimate of the number of properties which are empty in(a) local authority housing, (b) housing association housing and (c) Government Department housing; and what is the estimate of the percentage this represents of the total number of properties in each such group.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Vacant Dwellings by Tenure, 1 April 1990

  Number

  Percentage

  Local Authority1

  3,023

  1·3

  Housing Association2

  251

  1·1

  Government Departments3

  99

  1·6

  1Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  2Source: Housing for Wales. These figures are given in terms of units rather than dwellings.

  3Source: Local authority housing investment programme returns.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the total number of state secondary schools in Wales; how many of them provide GCSE and A-level course, respectively, in(a) German, (b) Latin or (c) Spanish; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if it is possible to study (a) Italian or (b) Japanese to GCSE or A-level standard at any state school in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are 232 maintained secondary schools in Wales. Subject to the requirements of the Education Reform Act responsibility for the provision of subjects of study leading to GCSE or GCE advanced certification rests with individual secondary schools.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales(a) sat and (b) passed GSCE and A-level (i) German, (ii) Italian, (iii) Japanese, (iv) Latin or (v) Spanish, respectively, in each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of candidates in Wales who sat and passed GCSE and A-level examinations conducted by the Welsh Joint Education Committee in German, Italian, Japanese, Latin and Spanish in each year since 1987, are given in the following tables:
  493

  German

  Italian

  Japanese

  Latin

  Spanish

  1988

  Candidates entered

  1,956

  57

  —

  246

  361

  Grades A–G

  1,948

  57

  —

  236

  360

  1989

  Candidates entered

  2,202

  49

  6

  141

  389

  Grades A–G

  2,198

  49

  6

  139

  388

  1990

  Candidates entered

  2,361

  90

  —

  122

  489

  Grades A–G

  2,359

  90

  —

  116

  489

  1 Some candidates were examined through the common syllabus, and hence counted twice.

  2 GCSE was not introduced until 1988, for 1987 "O" level grades A–E and CSE grades 1–5 were added together to give a comparison with GCSE grades A–G in subsequent years.

  A Level

  German

  Italian

  Japanese

  Latin

  Spanish

  1987

  Candidates entered

  205

  9

  —

  45

  69

  Grades A–E

  195

  9

  —

  40

  63

  1988

  Candidates entered

  251

  12

  —

  30

  72

  Grades A–E

  224

  12

  —

  27

  61

  1989

  Candidates entered

  193

  7

  7

  27

  73

  Grades A–E

  175

  7

  5

  23

  68

  1990

  Candidates entered

  323

  9

  3

  25

  95

  Grades A–E

  303

  8

  3

  20

  90

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what conclusions he has reached on the rating of property located in areas which cease to have enterprise zone status.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Regulations have been laid today under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to provide that, as rateable values are assessed when zones cease and property becomes rateable, the rents of non-domestic property in enterprise zones should be discounted. This will ensure that any effect on rents at 1 April 1988 brought about by the existence of a zone will not affect rateable values of property in its former area.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Security Council
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the reasons for convening the most recent meeting of the United Nations Security Council in camera; and what was the United Kingdom's position on this matter;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last 30 years the Security Council of the United Nations has met in secret; when it last met in secret prior to February 1991; and what was the reason.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Security Council meets in private whenever discussing or deciding upon any recommendation to the General Assembly regarding the appointment of the Secretary-General. It also meets in private to discuss drafts of its annual report. Apart from 494
  these meetings, another five Security Council meetings have been held in private in the 30 years up to 23 February 1991. Prior to 14 February 1991, the last private meeting of the Security Council was on 6 November 1975, to discuss western Sahara. The United Kingdom proposed the procedural motion in the Security Council on 13 February which called for the following day's meeting on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait to be held in private, in view of the need for sober consideration of the matter away from the glare of publicity. The Council agree that the United Nations delegations of all member states were free to attend the meeting, but the press and public were excluded.

  Nabil Shaath
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects were discussed at the meeting between Nabil Shaath, senior political adviser to Yasser Arafat, and his officials on 19 February.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Nabil Shaath had two meetings with FCO officials on 18 and 19 February. They discussed a variety of Middle East issues including the situation in the Occupied Territories and prospects for the peace process in the wake of the Gulf conflict.

  East Timor
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom delegates last sought to raise at the United Nations Security Council the Indonesian occupation of East Timor.
  495
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom has not sought to raise the East Timor issue since voting in favour of United Nations Security Council resolution No. 389 in 1976.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Governments were consulted before Her Majesty's Government rejected the Iraqi proposals to withdraw from Kuwait; and what criteria were adopted for choosing the Governments contacted and the order in which they were contacted.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We remain in constant touch with our coalition partners on a wide range of matters relating to the Gulf crisis.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's latest assessment of Pakistani nuclear weapon design and development capability.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are concerned about the unsafeguarded nuclear programme in Pakistan. We have always encouraged all non-parties to accede to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; this would engage them in an undertaking not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps were taken to inform(a) hon. Members and (b) non-governmental organisations of the outcome of (i) the fourth quinquennial review conference of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in Geneva in 1990 and (ii) the first amendment conference of the partial nuclear test ban treaty in New York in 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On the outcome of the nonproliferation treaty review conference, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs wrote to all hon. Members on 18 October 1990. I am arranging for a copy of this letter to be placed in the Library of the House. In addition, the Arms Control and Disarmament Quarterly Review No. 19 of October 1990, carried a report of the Conference. This review is distributed to many non-governmental organisations.

  On the partial test ban treaty amendment conference the outcome was that a decision was adopted by the majority of participants acknowledging the complexity of the issues surrounding a comprehensive test ban and mandating the conference president to conduct consultations with a view to resuming the work of the conference at an appropriate time. A copy of the decision of the Conference, taken by majority vote, is being placed in the Library of the House.

  China
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Chinese Government in connection with continuing breaches of human rights and denial of democracy and human liberty.
  496
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We regularly express our concern to the Chinese authorities about reports of human rights abuses, and have made a number of representations, with our EC partners, about those detained following the suppression of the democracy movement in June 1989. We have told the Chinese Government that we regard the sentences imposed on the leaders of this movement as excessively harsh for actions not regarded as crimes in the west.

  Tibet
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will now seek international action to press for the withdrawal of Chinese forces from Tibet.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on efforts to find a resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our policy has not changed. Our position remains that the dispute over the status of Kashmir should be settled peacefully between the governments of India and Pakistan, by whatever means are mutually agreed between them. We have offered to help in this if both sides would like us to do so.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the figures given in the answer of the Minister for Overseas Development of 6 February,Official Report, column 146, on the uncommitted proportion of Overseas Development Administration humanitarian provision and the total level of that provision include the effects of the Minister's commitments of aid to Ethiopia on 29 January and to Sudan on 5 February.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The figures include 10,000 tonnes of food aid and £2 million for non-food items for Ethiopia, plus £250,000 for Somali refugees. They exclude 1991 food aid pledges for Ethiopia and Sudan of 25,000 tonnes and 20,000 tonnes respectively.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of the Minister for Overseas Development to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) of 5 February,Official Report, column 75, whether the £5 million aid for Ethiopia to be paid in 1991–92 includes any of the £2 million for non-food assistance announced in the Minister for Overseas Development's answer of 29 January, Official Report, column 462–63.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No. The £2 million non-food aid is available in the current financial year.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the 10,000
  497
  tonnes of food aid sent to Massawa, announced in the answer of the Minister for Overseas Development of 29 January, Official Report, column 462–63, arrived in Massawa; whether the 10,000 tonne shipment was included in any of the announcements of famine relief made during 1990; whether it was sent through the world food programme; and when it was first committed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The 10,000 tonnes of United Kingdom cereals food aid for Massawa I announced on 29 January is expected to arrive at Djibouti on 4 March 1991. The actual date of arrival at Massawa will depend on how quickly the world food programme can arrange for on-shipping to that port. The original arrival date was planned for mid-February. This in the event proved impossible because, due to the war in the Gulf, the shipment had to go via the Cape.

  This shipment of food aid was not included in any announcement made in 1990. It was committed to the world food programme on 23 January 1991.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the commitment of 19,000 tonnes of food aid for Ethiopia, referred to in the Minister for Overseas Development's answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 461, was first announced to Parliament.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I informed the House on 15 October during ODA oral questions in reply to a supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. I said:"The outlook in Ethiopia for next year is bleak. The FAO and US Agency for International Development crop assessment mission will give donors more detailed reports at the end of next month. Meanwhile, I have just announced 19,000 further tonnes of food aid for Ethiopia through the World Food Programme; a further 5,000 tonnes of cereals to the NGO CARE; £500,000 to the Save the Children Fund for the purchase of trucks and spares for the southern line operations; and £600,000 worth of vegetable oil to the UNHCR for Somalian and Sudanese refugees in Ethiopia. We shall continue to monitor the situation extremely carefully and provide further help. Our total emergency aid for Ethiopia so far this year is more than £16·5 million".

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what it the total number of state secondary schools in England; how many of them provide GCSE and A-level courses, respectively, in German; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In January 1990 there were 3,453 maintained secondary schools in, England, of which 1,932 had sixth forms and 113 were sixth form colleges. The 1988 secondary schools staffing survey showed the following proportions of schools teaching German:

  Year group 10,

  74 per cent.

  Year group 11,

  74 per cent.

  Sixth form1,

  70 per cent.

  1Based on schools with sixth forms containing 25 or more pupils.

  Within these schools, 96 per cent. of German tuition time in Year Groups 10 and 11 was aimed towards GCSE, while in the sixth form 90 per cent. of tuition was aimed towards A-levels and 5 per cent. towards GCSE.

ENERGY

  Solicitors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 560, for what legal purpose he commissioned the services of Messrs Phillips and Buck, solicitors, of Cardiff.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Messrs Phillips and Buck were appointed to provide the Secretary of State with legal advice on the translation, from English into Welsh, of documents relating to the offer for sale of the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of premises registered to conduct experiments or scientific procedures involving living animals in each year since 1987.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to a question from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on 20 February at column 173.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to publish on an annual basis a breakdown of severity details on individual procedures carried out under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the design and size of cages used to house non-human primates utilised in scientific experiments.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Home Office "Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures" (1989; HC107) contains recommendations on a wide range of animal welfare matters. Paragraphs 3·43 to 3·59 of the code of practice cover special considerations for the housing and care of non-human primates. Part 2 of t he code of practice sets out recommended cage dimensions for non-human primates.

  Where an establishment's facilities do not fully comply with the code of practice, it is required to establish a programme for improvement with the agreement of the Home Office inspectorate, in accordance with paragraph 1.13 of the code of practice.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been allocated by his Department in each year since 1986 to reduce, refine or replace the use of animals in scientific experiments; how many applications there have been from individuals or organisations wishing to take advantage of this funding in each year; and how many research projects were funded in each year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Home Office receives a number of applications each year for funding research into ways of
  499
  reducing, refining or replacing the use of living animals in scientific procedures. Details of projects funded by the Home Office and of the grants awarded were given in the reply to a question from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 28 November 1990 at columns 416–17.

  The Home Office plans to make £215,000 available in 1991–92 for its research scheme. The Animal Procedures Committee, which administers the scheme on behalf of the Home Office, is currently seeking worthwhile projects for funding.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to prohibit scientific experiments on non-human primates which involve the removal of kidneys from the animals concerned.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. In the only such case which has arisen, my right hon. Friend accepted the advice of the Animal Procedures Committee, reported in paragraphs 4.15 and 4.16 of the Committee's annual report for 1988 (HC 458), and the project licence was grnted.

  Firework Injuries
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of animals injured by fireworks in each year from 1986 to 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Home Office holds no information on which to make such an estimate. The safety of fireworks in the hands of the consumer is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many shopkeepers have been prosecuted for selling fireworks to minors in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is an offence under section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875 as amended by the Explosives Act (Age of Purchase etc.) Act 1976 section 1 to sell fireworks to children under the age of 16. Information for England and Wales, which may be incomplete, is given in the table. The Scottish Office Home and Health Department cannot separately identify offences in this category.

  Number of defendants prosecuted for selling fireworks to children under 16 years of age

  England and Wales

  Year

  Prosecutions

  1980

  —

  1981

  —

  1982

  —

  1983

  —

  1984

  —

  1985

  —

  1986

  8

  1987

  2

  1988

  3

  1989

  —

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he intends to take to reassure lay magistrates of their continued ability to effectively manage the magistrates courts system; and if he will make a statement;
  500
  (2) if he has any plans to introduce central Government funding for the magistrates courts service following the LeVay scrutiny; what steps he intends to take to ensure the independence of the magistrates courts system; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when he will be in a position to inform all lay magistrates in addition to established channels of communication, which of the four proposals under consideration as models for the future magistrates courts system he will recommend; what steps he is taking to ensure that the Magistrates Association and the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committee adequately reflect the views of the lay magistrates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have not yet reached a decision on the scrutiny proposals for reorganising the magistrates courts service. As soon as we have done so we shall make an announcement which will be made available to the service and its representative organisations. I have no reason to doubt that these organisations adequately represent the views of their members.

  Homicides
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of persons who have been convicted of homicide within two years of being released from compulsory detention in a mental hospital, in each of the last 10 years in England and Wales.

  Mr. Patten
  Records available to me show two persons, one released in 1977 and one in 1981, who were convicted of homicide within two years of release from a mental hospital. Further information on recalls and reconvictions of mentally disordered offenders is published annually in a Home Office Statistical Bulletin. A copy of the latest issue "Reconvictions and recalls of life licensees and mentally disordered offenders, 1988" (HOSB 27/90) is available in the Library.

  Vagrancy
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give by year the number of court actions for vagrancy in the Mansfield court area since 1987;

  (2) if he will give by year the number of court actions for vagrancy by petty sessions division since 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 20 February 1991]: Information for the vagrancy offences of begging and sleeping out is given in the tables below. There have been no prosecutions recorded centrally for these offences in the Mansfield petty sessional division.

  Tabel A Number of prosecutions for the offence of begging by petty sessional divisions 1987 to 1989.

  England and Wales

  Petty sessional divisions

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Bristol

  —

  3

  12

  North Bedfordshire

  —

  1

  1

  Luton

  —

  —

  1

  Forest

  —

  1

  —

  West Berkshire

  —

  1

  —

  Aylesbury

  —

  —

  1

  Cambridge

  5

  6

  10

  Teeside

  —

  1

  —

  Penwith

  2

  —

  —

  South East Cornwall

  —

  —

  6

  501

  Petty sessional divisions

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Falmouth—Penryn

  —

  1

  2

  Truro and South Powder

  —

  —

  1

  Carlisle

  —

  2

  3

  Penrith and Alston

  —

  1

  —

  Diss

  1

  —

  —

  Exeter

  2

  6

  —

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  9

  Teinbridge

  —

  —

  1

  Torbay

  1

  1

  1

  Bournemouth

  —

  —

  3

  Brighton

  2

  4

  17

  Hastings

  1

  1

  —

  Hove

  2

  —

  2

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  —

  Manchester

  —

  2

  2

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  Alton

  —

  —

  2

  Droxford

  —

  —

  1

  Lymington

  1

  —

  —

  Odiham

  —

  2

  —

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  —

  Southampton

  1

  1

  2

  Hereford (Borough)

  1

  —

  —

  Cheshunt

  —

  —

  4

  Dacoram

  —

  1

  —

  Watford

  2

  —

  1

  Grimsby and Cleethorpes

  —

  —

  1

  Canterbury and St. Augustin

  —

  —

  1

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  2

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  1

  Preston

  2

  —

  —

  Rossendale

  —

  —

  4

  Liverpool

  —

  9

  6

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  1

  Daventry

  —

  1

  —

  Northampton

  —

  1

  —

  Wellingborough

  —

  1

  —

  York

  5

  3

  —

  Guildhall Justice Room

  —

  —

  5

  Bow Street

  204

  176

  618

  Clerkenwell

  9

  24

  160

  Greenwich

  1

  1

  1

  Marlborough Street

  45

  76

  77

  Marylebone

  54

  87

  55

  Old Street

  —

  2

  5

  South Western

  7

  2

  4

  Thames

  —

  —

  1

  Tower Bridge

  2

  3

  5

  West London (Southcombe St.)

  7

  10

  10

  Wells Street

  3

  2

  —

  Camberwell Green

  2

  —

  3

  Horseferry Road

  55

  59

  236

  Highbury Corner

  9

  41

  32

  Oxford

  12

  12

  39

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  1

  Islington

  —

  1

  —

  City of Westminster

  2

  —

  —

  North Oxfordshire and Chipping Norton

  1

  —

  —

  Yeovil

  —

  —

  3

  Stratford

  —

  —

  2

  West Ham

  1

  —

  —

  Barnet

  —

  1

  —

  Brentford

  —

  —

  1

  Bexley

  —

  —

  1

  Croydon

  3

  —

  —

  Ealing

  2

  2

  10

  Hampstead

  —

  1

  —

  Hendon

  1

  1

  1

  Haringey

  —

  —

  1

  Tottenham

  —

  2

  5

  Harrow

  —

  1

  —

  Willesden

  3

  8

  10

  Wimbledon

  1

  —

  1

  Uxbridge

  —

  —

  2

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  1

  1

  New Spelthorne (Feltham)

  2

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  1

  —

  —

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  —

  —

  4

  502

  Petty sessional divisions

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  1

  Redbridge

  2

  —

  —

  Lowestoft

  —

  1

  —

  Dorking

  —

  1

  —

  Guildford

  —

  1

  1

  Staines and Sunbury

  —

  —

  1

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  1

  Coventry

  —

  —

  1

  Leeds

  3

  1

  —

  Wakefield

  1

  —

  —

  Chippenham

  —

  1

  —

  Salisbury

  —

  —

  2

  Swindon

  —

  —

  1

  Cynon Valley

  1

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  3

  5

  1

  Neath

  —

  —

  1

  ENGLAND AND WALES

  466

  573

  1,402

  Table B Number of prosecutions for the offence of sleeping out by petty sessional divisions 1987 to 1989

  England and Wales

  Petty sessional divisions

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Luton

  —

  —

  1

  West Berkshire

  2

  3

  1

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  1

  Manchester

  —

  —

  1

  Oldham

  —

  —

  2

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  2

  Grimsby and Cleethorpes

  —

  —

  2

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  1

  Preston

  1

  —

  —

  Wyre

  1

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  1

  1

  Selby

  —

  —

  1

  York

  1

  —

  —

  Bow Street

  4

  1

  2

  Marlborough Street

  —

  —

  1

  Marylebone

  2

  3

  2

  South Western

  2

  —

  4

  Thames

  —

  1

  —

  West London (Southcombe St.)

  —

  1

  1

  Horseferry Road

  —

  1

  —

  Highbury Corner

  —

  1

  —

  Ealing

  —

  1

  —

  Hendon

  —

  1

  —

  Haringey

  —

  1

  —

  Uxbridge

  —

  1

  2

  Barking

  1

  —

  —

  Leeds

  —

  1

  —

  Cardiff

  —

  1

  —

  England and Wales

  14

  17

  24

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has any plans to develop a United Kingdom-wide strategy for the training and retraining of defence industry workers.

  Mr. Jackson
  Like all employers, companies in the defence industry must take responsibility for the training and retraining of their employees. In the event of redundancies in the defence industry, there is a range of programmes and services available through the Employment Department, the Employment Service and training and enterprise councils (TECs) to help people find new jobs, retrain or set up their own businesses.

  Employment Protection
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claims under section 122 of the Employment Protection Consolidation Act 1978 are outstanding for (i) Stoke-on-Trent, North and (ii) W. H. Grindley and Co. Ltd., Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.

  Mr. Forth
  No figures are available for individual constituencies. Former employees of W. H. Grindley and Co. have submitted 165 claims for redundancy payments and 187 claims for compensatory notice payments.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions Health and Safety Executive inspectors have had to be funded by employers associations and trades unions in order to attend meetings of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) in respect of ensuring good guarding standards to protect workers from injury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been three occasions on which HSE has accepted offers made by employers associations and/or trade unions to share the cost of sending a representative to a meeting of a CEN committee.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the budget allocated to each of the Health and Safety Executive national industry groups involved in CEN technical committees and related working committees, to enable the inspectors fully to participate in all relevant meetings during the next budget year.

  Mr. Forth
  As I explained in my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Morris),Official Report, 11 December 1990, column 391, the HSE does not allocate specific sums to CEN work. The HSE recognises the important part which many of the standards now being prepared by CEN technical committees will make to promoting health and safety. This is reflected in the growing input which the HSE has made to standards work and which has grown from 27 staff years in 1988–89 to about 50 staff years in 1990–91. HSE plans to continue its input at about this level and following an examination of its priorities in this field it has concluded that it should concentrate on those areas where important health and safety issues arise. I am satisfied that the overall budget for this work is sufficient.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are open to a claimant before an industrial tribunal to obtain compensation where a decision of the tribunal in his favour has proved to be incapable of enforcement; and if he will make a statement in the case of Mr. Darren Read, case No. 3417/90.

  Mr. Forth
  In England and Wales an industrial tribunal decision generally has to be enforced through the county court. Where the tribunal awards a statutory redundancy payment which the employer fails to pay, the payment will be made by my Department. If the employer is formally insolvent certain debts, including a basic award for unfair dismissal and holiday pay, may also be paid by my 504
  Department. I shall be replying shortly to the letter which my hon. Friend recently sent the Department about the case of Mr. Read.

  Tourism
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the task force on tourism, set up in August 1990, will complete its review of the industry; and when its report will be published.

  Mr. Forth
  The report presenting the work and findings of the tourism and environment task force will be launched at a major conference to be held at the London Hilton on 1 May 1991.

TRANSPORT

  Stations (Public Address Systems)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will instruct the railways inspectorate to require London Underground and British Rail management to provide clearly audible public address systems at railway stations and to ensure that those who make announcements concerning the safety of passengers can speak English distinctly.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. This is primarily a matter for railway operators, but Her Majesty's railway inspectorate monitors the effectiveness of public address systems when visiting stations. British Rail and London Underground attach importance to the clarity and audibility of public address announcements.

  Antifouling Paint
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce an international maritime organisation record system to register and certify every vessel as to the type of antifouling paint used.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. An international record system for ships has been considered by the marine environment protection committee of the International Maritime Organisation and judged to be impracticable.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to establish the limit for vessel hull release rates for Tributyltin compounds used in antifouling paints in µg/cm2/day from vessel hulls, including an agreement on the method of measurement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine environment protection committee of the International Maritime Organisation has recommended that anti-fouling paints containing Tributyltin compounds should not have an average release rate of more than 4 microgrammes of organotin per square centimetre per day. My Department accepts this limit. With the United Kingdom's active participation acceptable methods for measuring release rates are being developed by the International Maritime Organisation.

  Noise Insulation
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the report of the committee considering a noise insulation standard for new railway lines; and if he will make a statement.
  505
  Mr. Freeman
  I am publishing today the report of the committee set up last March by my predecessor, to recommend a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines which equitably relates to the standard set by regulations for new highways. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  I should like to express my thanks to the Chairman, Dr. C. G. B. Mitchell of the transport and road research laboratory, and members of the committee for the careful and thorough way they have carried out their task. I am also grateful to all those who submitted evidence to the committee.

  The intention underlying the setting up of the committee was that the establishing of a standard or standards comparable to that applying to new road construction was an essential first step towards drawing up noise insulation regulations for new railway lines. We shall study the report carefully. Before deciding on its recommendations we should like to have the views on them of British Rail, London Regional Transport and other railway operators, whom I am consulting, and of other interested persons. In due course I shall announce the Government's conclusions and subsequently we shall consult widely on the drafting of the regulations.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of exempting from corporation tax(a) the first £1,000 of profits and (b) the first £5,000 of profits in respect of (i) small limited companies and (ii) all limited companies.

  Mr. Maude
  On the assumption that a single exempt amount would be available to a company group and would be divided equally between the members of the group, the direct corporation tax cost is tentatively estimated to be:

  Exempt amount

  Companies liable at the same companies' rate

  All companies

  £

  £ million

  £ million

  1,000

  20

  30

  5,000

  100

  150

  These estimates are based on the existing distribution of taxable profits and therefore ignore any behavioural changes. These cannot be quantified readily but they are likely to have a further very substantial effect upon revenue.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what inquiries he has made into the possible acquisition by the Sunday Times from his Department of advance information of the retail prices index figures for January 1991.

  Mr. Maples
  There are no grounds to suppose that the Sunday Times received any information before publication. The RPI for January 1991 was close to the prior expectations of many commentators.

  Inflation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average inflation rate for (i) 1986–87, (ii) 1987–88, (iii) 1988–89, (iv) 1989–90 and (v) 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  The information is as follows:

  Annual rate of increase in retail prices index

  12 months to

  Percent.

  January 1987

  3·9

  January 1988

  3·3

  January 1989

  7·5

  January 1990

  7·7

  January 1991

  9·0

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT and other indirect tax payments was paid, and what proportion of gross income is taken by these taxes, for a household with a single earner earning(a) £40, (b) £60, (c) £80, (d) £100 and (e) £600 per week in 1978–79, and in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that all the levels of earnings specified for 1990–91, and levels(a), (b) and (e) for 1978–79, fall outside the range for which reliable estimates of household indirect tax payments can be made. The figures requested for 1978–79 for earnings levels (c) and (d), for a household consisting of a one-earner couple with no children, are given in the table.

  One earner-couple with no children: 1978–79

  per week

  Gross earnings

  £80·00

  £100·00

  VAT

  £2·03

  £2·66

  As a percentage of earnings

  2·5

  2·7

  Other indirect taxes

  £7·84

  £9·02

  As a percentage of earnings

  9·8

  9·0

  Tax-exempt Special Savings Accounts
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the number of TESSAs likely to represent additional savings; and how many are transferred from other forms of savings.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: TESSAs are proving to be very successful and are undoubtedly helping to encourage a climate of thrift. Any estimate of their effect on the overall level of personal savings would be speculative.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax will be foregone for each 100,000 TESSAs taken out in each of the first five years, assuming that the maximum is invested in each TESSA.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The cost of tax relief would depend on the rates of interest paid, the marginal tax rate of investors, and whether they invest the money as a lump sum or in regular monthly payments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Advance Factories
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the IDB and LEDU have to build advance factories and units within the constituency of Mid-Ulster during the next three years.

  Mr. Needham
  The Industrial Development Board's plans for advance factories are being reviewed. The needs of the Mid-Ulster constituency will be considered in decisions on future locations. The LEDU does not build advance factories or units, but under its local enterprise programme it aids the establishment of local enterprise agencies which provide workspace accommodation for small businesses. Plans for the next three years include a 33,000 sq ft agency in Cookstown, an expansion of Omagh Enterprise Company, the provision of some workspace units in Ardboe and Creggan and possibly Donemana. In addition, under its property developers scheme, the LEDU is negotiating the provision of 48,500 sq ft of industrial workspace with six private developers in the Mid-Ulster area.

  Housing Demolitions, Antrim
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Housing Executive dwellings have been demolished in Antrim borough council area since 1985.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the number is 365.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland(a) sat and (b) passed GCSE and A-level in (i) German, (ii) Italian, (iii) Latin and (iv) Spanish in each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Numbers who sat Northern Ireland GCSE and A-level examinations:

  11987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  (i) German

  GCSE

  871

  867

  1,051

  1,054

  A-level

  200

  204

  175

  210

  (ii) Italian

  GCSE

  176

  141

  123

  110

  A-level

  25

  29

  33

  38

  (iii) Latin

  GCSE

  567

  468

  437

  389

  A-level

  92

  102

  77

  88

  (iv) Spanish

  GCSE

  991

  942

  997

  1,022

  A-level

  298

  263

  277

  342

  (b) Numbers who passed Northern Ireland GCSE and A-level examinations:
  508

  19871

  1988

  1989

  1990

  (i) German

  GCSE

  814

  865

  1,043

  1,052

  A-level

  164

  170

  145

  190

  (ii) Italian

  GCSE

  148

  141

  123

  110

  A-level

  24

  28

  33

  38

  (iii) Latin

  GCSE

  553

  464

  431

  377

  A-level

  81

  94

  72

  84

  (iv) Spanish

  GCSE

  880

  937

  980

  1,021

  A-level

  220

  215

  227

  292

  1 In 1987, there were no GCSE examinations. The figures given for that year are for GCE O-level and CSE examinations. GCSE passes comprise grades A–G (O-level grades A–E and CSE grades 1–5 for 1987). A-level passes comprise grades A–E.

  (c) Numbers who sat and obtained GCE O-level and A-level examinations held by examining boards outside the Province:

  Numbers who sat 1987–881

  Numbers who passed 1987–881

  (i) German

  GCE

  39

  34

  A-level

  0

  0

  (ii) Italian

  GCE

  0

  0

  A-level

  0

  0

  (iii) Latin

  GCE

  37

  37

  A-level

  9

  8

  (iv) Spanish

  GCE

  5

  5

  A-level

  0

  0

  1 These are the latest figures available. The examinations are taken in the winter and summer terms.

  Note:

  These figures include students re-sitting examinations at the beginning of the 1987–88 school year.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of state secondary schools in Northern Ireland; how many of them provide GCSE and A level courses, respectively, in (i) German, (ii) Italian, (iii) Latin and (iv) Spanish; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is a total of 240 state secondary schools in Northern Ireland. Of these, the following numbers provide GCSE and A level courses in the subjects listed:

  GCSE

  A Level

  (i) German

  64

  41

  (ii) Italian

  7

  6

  (iii) Latin

  41

  22

  (iv) Spanish

  60

  47

  Note The above figures are based on Northern Ireland examination entries for 1990.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds in Northern Ireland were in receipt of a bridging allowance; and what proportion of those who had

  509
  exhausted their entitlement to a bridging allowance still had not secured a training place under the youth training programme in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, 1,975 16 and 17-year-olds received bridging allowance in the 12 months to January 1991. At 22 February 1991, 172 young people who had exhausted their entitlement to bridging allowance had not yet secured a training place on the youth training programme.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many 16 and 17-year-olds have not been offered places on YTP schemes in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Needham
  Every 16 and 17-year-old who has sought a place on the programme in the past 12 months has been offered one.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the volume of hazardous waste generated in Northern Ireland; what substances are involved; where are the processing units of their source and the respective amounts.

  Mr. Needham
  Hazardous waste is, with some exceptions, "special waste" as defined in the Pollution Control (Special Waste) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1981. The volume of such waste generated in the Province is estimated at 8,000 tonnes. Special waste includes solvent residues, galvanising acids, asbestos, contaminated sludges, insecticides and pesticides and electro-plating and textile dye wastes. The main procedures are located in the Belfast and Londonderry areas and include companies such as Shorts, Harland and Wolff, James Mackie Textiles, Du Pont (UK) Ltd. and GEC Engineering. The respective amounts of special waste generated by these firms are not collated individually.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration the IDB and DED has given to the potential of a hazardous waste incinerator in Northern Ireland in attracting further industries which generate hazardous waste.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what weight is given to the views of district council environmental health departments or health and social services board public health directors in deciding on the construction or siting of a hazardous waste incinerator in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Such views would be taken fully into account in the determination by the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland of any planning application for such a proposal.

  Rateable Values
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations have been made to the valuation offices of his Department concerning rateable valuation of new property and particularly appartments in contrast to houses.
  510
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Education
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of policy evaluation projects, opinion polls or research studies conducted by, for, or on behalf of the Department of Education since 1 January 1985, giving the date and purpose of each study; and if he will list future plans in this area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year 1985

  Title and Purpose

  Further Education and Employment for 16–19 Year Olds

  Examination of day release, block release and evening vocational courses.

  1975 Cohort

  Study of the adaptation of pupils entering grammar, secondary, junior high and secondary schools.

  Evaluation of Geography for the Young School Leaver

  Evaluation of the place geography for the young school leaver plays in the wider curriculum of schools.

  Young People in the Youth Training Programme

  Assessment of the extent to which YTP training meets the needs of school leavers.

  Follow-up of Newly Trained Teachers

  Annual analysis of qualifications and subject sector emphasis of newly qualified teachers.

  Transfer Procedure

  Survey of the effectiveness of the transfer procedure and its influence on the primary curriculum.

  The Microcomputer in Secondary Mathematics

  Investigation of the use of microcomputers in secondary education.

  Survey of Sixth Formers

  The Policy Research Institute undertook a survey of sixth formers in Northern Ireland schools to determine their attitude to higher education and to obtain information on their participation in further and higher education.

  1985–87

  Evaluation of the role of meeting the needs of maladjusted pupils (Fallowfield School).

  Survey of Newly Qualified Teachers

  1985–90

  Survey of teacher employment.

  EUDISED

  Collation of education research for Council of Europe.

  Register of Research—Computerisation of a register of research.

  The M Grade Study

  Identification of the curricular opportunities available to M grade pupils.

  The Upper Primary Curriculum

  Study of the extent to which the Transfer Procedure may distort the upper primary curriculum.

  Years of Teaching

  Study of the employment and induction experience of teachers qualified in 1985.

  Nursery Education

  Study of the levels of provision of nursery education in Northern Ireland, and-views on the nature of its provision.

  GCSE

  Study of post-primary teachers' views on Northern Ireland Schools Examinations Council's (NISEAC) training arrangements and publicity.

  Research Selectivity

  Working Party set up by DENI, the Queen's University of Belfast and the University of Ulster to consider research provision in the two Northern Ireland universities in the light of the policy of the (then) University Grants Committee on selective of resource allocation. Report published in December 1987
  511
  Youth Service

  Consultative policy document in the Northern Ireland Youth Service.

  1986–87

  Education Industry Links in the NE Board

  Study of the education industry liaison service.

  Language and Literacy in Belfast

  Evaluation of the Belfast Education and Library Board's strategy for primary guidelines in language-literacy.

  Transfer Pupils at 16

  Examination of the efficiency of the Transfer Procedure as a predictor of future examination success.

  1986–90

  Societal and Educational Context for Variations in Identity Development

  To determine differences in children's development patterns.

  Mathematics and its Concomitants

  To investigate the errors children make in mathematics and for how long the errors persist based on surveys taken at different stages in their development, which take account of various outside factors.

  Community Relations

  Examination of inter-school cross-community cooperation in the Western Education and Library Board.

  The role of the Churches in inter-community relations.

  1987–90

  Evaluation of Small Primary Schools Curriculum Support Scheme

  To evaluate the changes in curricular content, balance and quality of work, and to consider the operation of the arrangements.

  Writing Into Reading

  To encourage pupil involvement in writing and reading materials with a local flavour.

  Parents in Special Education

  Review of the role of parents in the education of children with severe learning difficulties.

  Teacher Stress

  A review of evidence on teacher stress.

  Transfer Procedure

  Survey of the effectiveness of the transfer procedure.

  Youth Service

  Study of voluntary input into the Youth Service.

  1988–89

  Severe Learning Difficulties

  Identification of issues which affect educational practice and means of attaining desired objectives.

  Seconded Teachers

  Examination of the value of teacher secondment.

  Athletics

  Indoor athletics arena feasibility study.

  Museums

  Northern Ireland Museums Advisory Committee 3-year study into a Northern Ireland Local Museums Service.

  Local Management of Schools (LMS)

  Evaluation of the effectiveness of the pilot project.
  512
  Primary Records

  Examination of the arrangements for record keeping in primary schools.

  Parents and the 1989–90 Transfer Procedure

  Investigation of the response by parents to their responsibilities under the 1989 Education Reform Order in selecting post-primary places for their children.

  System Differences in Northern Ireland Education

  Examination of the system differences in post-primary education.

  Sports Centre

  Northern Ireland Sports Centre feasibility study.

  Northern Ireland Museums Advisory Committee survey of public attitudes and views of museums.

  Library and Information Services Council Library and Information Plan for Northern Ireland.

  Arts Council feasibility study into an academy for the performing arts.

  Study of Social Integration at Lagan College.

  Evaluation of effectiveness of Education for Mutual Understanding initiatives in schools.

  Comparative study of attitudes in students teachers in segregated and non-segregated institutions.

  An opinion poll was conducted on behalf of the Department of Education early in 1990 to assess the effectiveness of the Department's information campaign on the education reforms.

  FUTURE PLANS

  It is planned to carry out policy evaluation studies during 1991 and various options are currently being examined.

  Northern Ireland fitness survey.

  Evaluation of sports facilities and development policy.

  Arts Council Survey of Arts Audiences in Northern Ireland

  To establish a framework against which policies and strategies for the formation of arts can be tested and developed.

  Study of the Economic Importance of the Arts in Northern Ireland
  To examine how and to what extent the Arts might be encouraged so as to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy.
  Evaluation of commmunity relations programmes.
  Unjustified pupil absenteeism: to identify factors which contribute to unjustified absenteeism and to evaluate the responses of authorities in dealing with such absences.
  Introduction of the Common Curriculum: to assist with and monitor the implementation of the common curriculum in a sample of primary schools in Northern Ireland.
  Investigation of the learning games for pupils arising from a high level of Information Technology (IT) and to explore the viability of using lap-top computers in schools to meet the requirements of the IT cross-curricular theme.
  Assessment of strategies for modern language teaching to children of full ability range.
  Pilot postal survey of secondary education leavers: to investigate the feasibility of a larger scale survey to provide information on qualifications and first destinations of secondary education leavers.

  Future research topics will be identified in accordance with the Department's research strategy in which policy-related topics are prioritised and researchers are invited to submit proposals addressing the issues involved.

  Race Relations Act
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to extend the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 to Northern Ireland.
  513
  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: In its second report, on "Religious and Political Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity in Northern Ireland" (Cm 1107) the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has recommended that racial discrimination be made unlawful in Northern Ireland. I am considering this with the other detailed recommendations of the report.

  Youth Training Programme
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the total number of students eligible to leave school(a) remained on at school, (b)

  Intended destinations of 16-year-old school leavers

  1983–84

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Employment

  8,119

  7,801

  8,145

  3,614

  3,258

  Training (inc YTP)

  3,633

  3,703

  Further Education

  3,510

  3,999

  4,293

  4,003

  4,359

  Seeking Employment

  1,932

  1,324

  1,011

  476

  357

  Unknown

  2,400

  2,190

  1,922

  1,793

  1,618

  Total

  15,961

  15,314

  15,371

  13,519

  13,295

  Notes:

  No survey was conducted for 1984–85.

  Pupils were aged 16 at the end of each school year (31 August).

  Further Education
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will initiate an Her Majesty's inspectorate survey on further education provision to assess the demand for and availability of provision for students.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 26 February 1991]: No. Such assessments will form part of the strategic plan of each education and library board with which rests the statutory duty for securing adequate further education facilities for its area.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Produce
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make representations to his European Community counterparts to introduce a community-wide symbol for organic and conservation grade produce.

  Mr. Curry
  The draft European Community regulation on the production and labelling of organic foods already contains provision for the use on organic foods, except on those processed foods which are only partially composed of organic ingredients, of a reference to the EC control system. Further, if the regulation is adopted, it will be illegal to sell food as organic unless it has been produced in accordance with the regulation.

  The term conservation grade is a certification trade mark owned by the Guild of Conservation Food Producers.

  Meat (Residues)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet instituted proceedings following the recent report of the veterinary medicines directorate on drug residues in meat; and if he will make a statement.
  514
  became employed full-time, (c) joined the youth training programme and (d) entered further education in each of the past five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 26 February 1991]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, an estimate based on movements between fifth and sixth forms suggests that about 40 per cent. remain on at school after fifth form. Available information on the intended destinations of 16-year-old school leavers is as follows:

  Mr. Maclean
  The Ministry carries out routine surveillance on animals and animal products for veterinary residues. Where evidence of illegal use of growth-promoting hormones is found, farmers can be prosecuted. In 1989, proceedings were taken against four farmers, two successfully. In 1990 there were no prosecutions.

  Green Issues
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who in his Department has been appointed to oversee and develop green issues; how many civil servants have been allocated new or additional responsibilities to deal with the management and development of green issues; and what additional allocation of resources has been made to support programmes related to green issues in his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has taken personal responsibility for the development of environmental policies and for the follow-up to the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cmd 1200) by the Ministry. I expect officials throughout the Department to take account of environmental considerations in discharging their duties. We have a duty under the Agriculture Act 1986 to balance the interests of agriculture with other interests in rural areas and the Government's commitment set out in chapter 7 of "This Common Inheritance" to seek a closer integration of agriculture and environmental policies. In 1991–92, expenditure on specific schemes designed to protect and enhance the countryside in England is expected to be of the order of £40 million. I have responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources and protection of the marine environment.

  Loans to Farmers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the interest charges for current farming purposes, buildings and works and (b) the bank advances for agriculture for each year from 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is shown in the table. The figures for total interest charges to agriculture for current farming purposes, buildings and works include interest on bank advances and on advances from other financial institutions. They are net of interest received by farmers on money held on short-term deposit. The figures for bank lending are the amounts outstanding to agriculture, forestry and fishing as at November each year. Bank advances for current farming purposes, buildings and works represent 80 to 90 per cent. of the total. Bank lending to agriculture, forestry and fishing expressed as a proportion of total bank lending has fallen substantially over the period.

  Year

  Total interest charges for current farming purposes, buildings and works

  Bank lending to agriculture, forestry and fishing1

  £ million

  £ million

  As a proportion of total bank lending Percentage

  1979

  318

  2,600

  4·7

  1980

  464

  3,178

  5·0

  1981

  468

  3,660

  4·7

  1982

  501

  4,447

  4·3

  1983

  494

  5,184

  4·2

  1984

  569

  5,495

  3·6

  1985

  704

  5,877

  3·5

  1986

  700

  6,088

  3·0

  1987

  637

  6,080

  2·5

  1988

  696

  6,530

  2·1

  1989

  955

  6,836

  1·7

  1990

  21,080

  7,118

  1·6

  1 As at November.

  2 Provisional.

  Drinks Cans
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the number of incidents of product contamination which have arisen in the latest year for which figures are available as a result of opening mechanisms of cans of drinks which involve part of the opener entering the can and coming into contact with the contents.

  Mr. Maclean
  No detailed statistics on food law enforcement are available centrally.

HEALTH

  Laboratory Services
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the privatisation of Yorkshire regional health authority and Bradford health authority laboratory services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a number of representations conccrning the initial discussions within Yorkshire regional health authority on the local organisation of pathology services.

  EC Health Treatment
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has on the consideration being given by Medway health authority to sending patients for treatment in France;

  (2) what guidance he has given on the provision of interpreters to patients of United Kingdom health authorities being treated overseas; and what arrangements he plans for assisting patients with travel expenses under such circumstances;

  (3) which health authorities in the United Kingdom are considering transferring patients for routine health care outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The relevant legislation, EC social security regulation 1408–71, places responsibility for authorisation of referrals of individual patients elsewhere in the EC on the Department of Health as the United Kingdom competent institution. We have received no representation from any United Kingdom health authority for referrals of patients as a matter of routine; this includes Medway health authority. Interpretation facilities for referred patients would be a matter for the institution providing treatment or the patient. Travelling costs would be the patient's own responsibility.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities which are failing to meet his one-month target for the return of cervical smear tests to the doctor who took them; and what action he is taking in respect of such authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Current information is not available in the form requested. A survey was carried out in the second half of 1990 into laboratory backlogs and workload. This survey showed that at July 1990 about two thirds of laboratories were meeting the target. We do not yet have comprehensive information for a more recent date.

  Liverpool and Sefton Health Authorities
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any proposals for the amalgamation of the Liverpool and the South Sefton district health authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is currently appointed as the district general manager of(a) the Liverpool area health authority and (b) the South Sefton health authority; and what were their previous posts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The appointment of a district general manager is a matter for the district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the health authorities for details.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any proposals from the Merseyside regional health authority to dispose of the Liverpool district health authority headquarters offices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. The disposal of these offices is a matter for the Mersey regional health authority.

  Clinical Psychology
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received the MAS report on the shortfall in psychology services in the national health service; and what steps he is taking to increase the availability of clinical psychology services in the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The management advisory service (MAS) report was commissioned by the manpower planning advisory group (MPAG), a joint Department of Health and NHS body. Part of its brief was to address manpower planning issues in the NHS. The recommendations of the MAS report informed the work of MPAG and the production of its own report on clinical psychology services in the NHS. It is for health authorities to determine the staff they require in the light of the services they are required to provide.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the time spent by any 999 caller in the automatic telephone stacking systems of the London ambulance service is included in the response time recommended as a component of the national ORCON standards.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. The response time commences when the London ambulance service operator answers the call.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present established strength of officer and control assistant grades of the London ambulance service; what plans there are for its expansion or contraction; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At 30 September 1989, the latest date for which figures are held centrally, there were 270 whole-time

  £ million

  1983

  1984

  Region

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF1

  EIB

  ERDF

  ESF

  ESGGF1

  EIB

  Borders

  Nil

  —

  —

  0·8

  Nil

  —

  —

  Nil

  Central

  4·3

  —

  —

  2·0

  2·4

  —

  —

  Nil

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·9

  —

  —

  1·2

  2·3

  —

  —

  Nil

  Fife

  7·9

  —

  —

  2·8

  4·9

  —

  —

  Nil

  Grampian

  0·2

  —

  —

  4·0

  Nil

  —

  —

  Nil

  Highlands and Islands

  19·7

  —

  —

  42·0

  20·6

  —

  —

  Nil

  Lothian

  2·1

  —

  —

  70·6

  7·3

  —

  —

  150·6

  Strathclyde

  38·4

  —

  —

  37·6

  58·6

  —

  —

  Nil

  Tayside

  9·5

  —

  —

  3·2

  6·1

  —

  —

  13·0

  Other

  0·2

  —

  —

  20·2

  1·1

  —

  —

  20·4

  Total

  83·2

  —

  21·5

  164·4

  103·3

  —

  19·0

  164·0

  1 denotes not available.

  1 Fiscal year; not available by region.

  2 Multi region; funding of schemes run across more than one region.

  Note:

  Due to rounding, regions showing nil expenditure may have received amounts of less than £50,000.

  £ million

  1985

  1986

  Region

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF1

  EIB

  ERDF

  ESF

  ESGGF1

  EIB

  Borders

  Nil

  —

  —

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  —

  Nil

  Central

  7·2

  —

  —

  7·5

  2·9

  —

  —

  7·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Nil

  —

  —

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  —

  Nil

  Fife

  5·5

  —

  —

  Nil

  6·0

  —

  —

  5·0

  Grampian

  0·4

  —

  —

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  —

  Nil

  Highlands and Islands

  11·0

  —

  —

  Nil

  4·3

  —

  —

  7·0

  Lothian

  6·5

  —

  —

  81·0

  7·6

  —

  —

  213·0

  Strathclyde

  37·2

  —

  —

  10·2

  48·6

  —

  —

  53·0

  Tayside

  1·3

  —

  —

  Nil

  14·4

  —

  —

  8·2

  518
  equivalent ambulance officers and 140 whole-time equivalent control assistants in post in the London ambulance service. Details are not held centrally on their staffing plans. The managment of the London ambulance service is the responsibility of the London ambulance service board. The hon. Member may wish to write to its chairman, Mr. James Harris, for details.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of non-urgent cases cancelled by the London ambulance service in October, November and December 1990, respectively, and the approximate proportion of each relating to walking and chair cases in each month.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not held centrally. The management of the London ambulance service is the responsibility of the London ambulance service board. The hon. Member may wish to write to Mr. James Harris, the chairman of the board, for details.

SCOTLAND

  European Loans
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing separate total amounts of money for grants from the European regional development fund, the European social fund, the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund and loans from the European investment bank for each of the years 1983 to 1990, inclusive, for each region in Scotland and for Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the tables; not all of it is available in the form requested.
  519

  1985

  1986

  Region

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF1

  EIB

  ERDF

  ESF

  ESGGF1

  EIB

  Other

  0·3

  —

  —

  234·8

  Nil

  —

  —

  20·0

  Total

  69·4

  —

  20·9

  133·5

  83·8

  —

  20·3

  313·7

  1 denotes not available.

  1 Fiscal year; not available by region.

  2 Multi region: funding of schemes run across more than one region.

  Note:

  Due to rounding, regions showing nil expenditure may have received amounts of less than £50,000.

  £ million

  1987

  1988

  Region

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF1

  EIB

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF1

  EIB

  Borders

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  4·0

  Central

  1·4

  0·6

  —

  Nil

  2·0

  0·9

  —

  10·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·3

  0·1

  —

  4·0

  1·0

  Nil

  —

  6·0

  Fife

  2·7

  0·6

  —

  5·0

  2·0

  0·6

  —

  14·0

  Grampian

  0·5

  0·2

  —

  Nil

  Nil

  0·3

  —

  30·0

  Highlands and Islands

  17·6

  0·2

  —

  60·0

  33·0

  0·3

  —

  10·0

  Lothian

  12·0

  2·5

  —

  32·0

  7·0

  2·9

  —

  28·0

  Strathclyde

  50·5

  8·7

  —

  23·0

  46·0

  9·7

  —

  104·8

  Tayside

  7·8

  1·0

  —

  5·0

  4·0

  2·2

  —

  16·0

  Other

  Nil

  20·8

  —

  Nil

  Nil

  2l·6

  —

  Nil

  Total

  92·8

  14·7

  19·5

  129·0

  95·0

  18·5

  18·2

  222·8

  —denotes not available.

  1 Fiscal year; not available by region.

  2 Multi region; funding of schemes run across more than one region.

  Note:

  Due to rounding, regions showing nil expenditure may have received amounts of less than £50,000.

  £ million

  1989

  1990

  Region

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF1

  EIB

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF1

  EIB

  Borders

  Nil

  0·3

  —

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  Nil

  Central

  Nil

  3·9

  —

  Nil

  4·6

  2·1

  —

  Nil

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Nil

  0·1

  —

  Nil

  Nil

  0·1

  —

  10·0

  Fife

  Nil

  1·0

  —

  Nil

  5·7

  1·2

  —

  Nil

  Grampian

  Nil

  1·7

  —

  Nil

  Nil

  1·9

  —

  Nil

  Highlands and Islands

  14·2

  0·1

  —

  Nil

  21·7

  0·3

  —

  100·0

  Lothian

  7·7

  3·2

  —

  Nil

  Nil

  2·3

  —

  Nil

  Strathclyde

  46·4

  15·0

  —

  75·5

  49·0

  19·0

  —

  42·5

  Tayside

  Nil

  2·8

  —

  Nil

  3·0

  3·2

  —

  Nil

  Other

  Nil

  21·l

  —

  25·8

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  2450

  Total

  68·3

  29·2

  15·9

  81·3

  84·0

  30·1

  19·3

  197·5

  —denotes not available.

  1 Fiscal year; not available by region.

  2 Multi region; funding of schemes run across more than one region.

  Note:

  Due to rounding, regions showing nil expenditure may have received amounts of less than £50,000.

  Libraries and Information Services Council
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the reports produced by the Libraries and Information Services Council for Scotland in each year from 1986 to 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Publication

  1986

  Scottish Newspapers, A Programme for Microfilming Scottish Newspapers.

  Report on the Scottish Library Association Survey of Special Library Statistics for Scotland.

  520

  Year

  Publication

  1987

  Strategic Plan 1987–89.

  Report of the Working Party on Information Technology.

  Information in Fife, A Library and Information Plan for Fife, Draft Written Statement.

  1988

  Income Generation and Related Matters in Scottish Libraries.

  Annual Report 1987–88.

  Towards Quality Resource Networks; Case Studies.

  1989

  Report of the Working Group on Interlending in Scotland.

  Report on Public Library Provision in Rural Scotland.

  Strategic Plan 1989–93.

  1990

  Scottish School Libraries Survey 1988–89.

  Strategic Plan 1990–91.

  Registration Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total electorate in each registration authority in Scotland, and the Scottish total, on 16 February in each of the years 1987 to 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For 1987 to 1990 I refer
  the hon. Member to:

  Table 2.1 in Electoral Statistics 1987 (Series EC No. 14)

  Table 2.1 in Electoral Statistics 1988 (Series EC No. 15)

  Table 3.1 in Electoral Statistics 1989 (Series EC No. 16)

  Table 2.1 in Electoral Statistics 1990 (Series EC No. 17)

  published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, copies of which are in the Library. "Electoral Statistics 1991" will be published in two or three months' time, once all the data have been collated.

  Takare plc
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Greater Glasgow health board has the resources to take up elderly care places over and above the number agreed in the contract with Takare plc for the development at Rutherglen.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards are given allocations to cover their total revenue expenditure. It is for boards themselves to decide their priorities for expenditure.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the value of the land at Rutherglen sold by Greater Glasgow health board to Takare plc took account of any use outwith the partnership agreement with that company.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The sale price of the site was set by the district valuer. In setting the price he took into account the intrinsic value of the site on the open market.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct Greater Glasgow health board to publish details of the contract with Takare plc relating to the price of land sold by the board to Takare plce at Rutherglen.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter for the board taking account of the requirements of commercial confidentiality between parties to a contract. I have asked the chairman of the board to write to the hon. Gentleman about this matter.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if Greater Glasgow health board has been offered elderly care beds at over and above the agreed number of beds contained within the partnership agreement with Takare plc at Rutherglen;

  (2) if any of the land sold by Greater Glasgow health board to Takare plc at Rutherglen is to be used for the provision of elderly care units exclusively for marketing in the private sector;

  (3) how many elderly care places Greater Glasgow health board has agreed to take up at the Takare plc development at Rutherglen.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  These are matters for the board and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any land at Rutherglen sold by Greater Glasgow health board to Takare plc is subject to any conditions about use for the provision of elderly care in the private sector.
  522
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The land was sold on condition that 180 nursing home beds are provided for use by Greater Glasgow health board.

  Smoking (Children)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the percentage of schoolchildren in Scotland who smoked in each year from 1985 to 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The percentage of schoolchildren who smoke in Scotland is measured periodically by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Scotland was included in the 1984, 1986 and 1990 surveys. The 1990 results will be available later this year but the outcome of the earlier surveys was as follows:

  Secondary schoolchildren aged 11–15

  Percentage

  Boys

  Girls

  All

  1984

  Regular smokers

  16

  17

  16

  Occasional smokers

  8

  9

  8

  Total

  24

  26

  24

  1986

  Regular smokers

  10

  14

  12

  Occasional smokers

  4

  6

  5

  Total

  14

  20

  17

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dyslexic children are receiving special education assistance in Scotland; and if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's plans to help dyslexic people's education.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Responsibility for the education of children with specific learning difficulties, including dyslexia, lies with education authorities, which employ learning support teachers for that purpose. Additionally, the Scottish Office Education Department has commissioned from Stirling university a research study of policy, practices and provision for children with specific learning difficulties. This will offer guidance about the needs of such children and will identify any gaps in provision. The research will be completed in 1992.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland(a) sat and (b) passed secondary examinations in (i) German, (ii) Italian, (ii) Latin and (iv) Spanish in each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information, which has been obtained from the Scottish Examination Board's annual report, for all Scottish certificate of examination candidates is given in the table. It is Government policy to promote the study of foreign languages in schools described in SOED circular 1178 of 12 January 1989.
  523

  Scottish Certificate of Education Ordinary Grade

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Presented

  Awarded Bands 1–3

  Presented

  Awarded Bands 1–3

  Presented

  Awarded Bands 1–3

  German

  6,209

  4,427

  5,806

  4,198

  5,637

  3,942

  Italian

  673

  498

  553

  428

  569

  439

  Latin

  2,366

  1,921

  2,070

  1,656

  1,387

  1,134

  Spanish

  1,222

  851

  1,328

  959

  1,266

  890

  Scottish Certificate of Education Standard Grade

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Presented

  Awarded Bands 1–3

  Presented

  Awarded Bands 1–3

  Presented

  Awarded Bands 1–3

  Latin

  0

  0

  169

  135

  676

  514

  Scottish Certificate of Education Higher Grade

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Presented

  Passed

  Presented

  Passed

  Presented

  Passed

  German

  2,044

  1,317

  1,950

  1,293

  1,927

  1,321

  Italian

  314

  238

  289

  211

  303

  239

  Latin

  851

  7486

  753

  648

  740

  628

  Spanish

  531

  380

  501

  407

  533

  413

  Certificate of Sixth Year Studies

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Presented

  Awarded Certificate (A–E)

  Presented

  Awarded Certificate (A–E)

  Presented

  Awarded Certificate (A–E)

  German

  163

  163

  147

  147

  172

  172

  Italian

  8

  8

  12

  12

  5

  5

  Latin

  35

  35

  43

  43

  42

  42

  Spanish

  27

  27

  23

  23

  28

  28

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time jobs there were in Scotland in 1979, and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  There is no comprehensive information on the number of full-time and part-time jobs in Scotland. The table gives the available information on the size and composition of the civilian work force in employment in Scotland in September 1979 and 1990.

  Civilian workforce in employment (thousands)

  1979

  21990

  Employees in employment

  2,108

  2,018

  Of whom women working part-time1

  331

  396

  Self employed3

  159

  250

  Government work related training

  —

  54

  Total

  2,267

  2,322

  Source: Department of Employment.

  1 Information on the number of male employees in employment working part-time is available only from Department of Employment censuses of employment. There were 59,600 male employees in employment working part-time at the time of the 1981 census of employment and 70,200 at the time of the 1987 census of employment.

  2 Estimates for the period after September 1987 are subject to revision on the publication of the 1989 census of employment.

  3 There are no estimates of the number of part-time self-employed in Scotland.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce agricultural pollution of water.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have today laid before the House regulations made under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which, from 1 March 1991, will set minimum standards that must be met by silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil installations. The Government's decision to legislate received a strong welcome in the public consultation exercise last year and the regulations take into account the responses received from a wide range of organisations representing environmental, agricultural, building and local authority interests. They are designed to strengthen the efforts already being made on a voluntary basis by the majority of farmers to reduce water pollution from agricultural sources and to implement an important commitment in the environment White Paper.

  The regulations will apply to all new or substantially enlarged or reconstructed installations. The river purification authorities will also be able to require that existing installations meet some or all of the standards in cases where there is a significant risk of pollution.

  These regulations represent one of a number of measures being taken by the Government to reduce farm pollution. They include the availability of generous grant-aid towards waste-handling facilities and the provision of free initial advice to help farmers avoid pollution.

  We shall keep the operation of the regulations under review and introduce further measures if necessary.

  Roads
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost in Scotland of undertaking remedial work to counteract the effects of concrete cancer on structures associated with motorways, trunkroads and major road bridges in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 February 1991]: Concrete cancer is a term used to describe the deterioration of existing concrete in bridges due to long-term alkali silica reaction.

  This problem occurs only with certain combinations of cement and aggregate types which are rarely encountered in Scotland. However, a very limited number of bridges contain precast concrete beams manufactured in England. The bridges concerned are being closely monitored. No expenditure is envisaged to counteract the effects of concrete cancer in Scotland in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Revised specifications for new concrete bridge construction should avoid problems in future years although, in the present state of world-wide knowledge of this phenomenon, it is impossible to eliminate all risks.

  Food Hygiene
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds will be made available to provide an awareness campaign on the forthcoming new temperature controls under the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990; and what form the campaign will take.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are making funds available from the Department of Health's publicity budget for a publicity campaign which comprises the following measures:

  a leaflet and poster highlighting the main provisions of the regulations;

  the direct mailing of the leaflet and poster to 300,000 business addresses;

  advertisements in the daily press and selected 'Trade journals;

  a telephone link service to respond to requests for publicity material.

  In addition "Guidelines on the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990" is being published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 21 February at columns 245–46.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  From April 1979 to December 1990 over 1·2 million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

  Tyneside Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the principal achievements of the Tyneside urban development corporation.
  526
  Mr. Portillo
  I was impressed by Tyne and Wear development corporation's achievements when I visited it last week. It has:

  secured some £250 million of actual investment on the river banks; with a further £500 million to come;

  created 5,500 jobs in Tyne and Wear;

  brought 1·25 million sq ft of industrial/commercial space to the market;

  reclaimed 300 acres of derelict land;

  and completed over 350 housing units.

  Housing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of the work of housing associations with that of local authority housing departments.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities are increasingly becoming enablers rather than direct providers of subsidised housing. They must ensure that housing needs in their areas are met, including their statutory duties towards the homeless. Housing associations are becoming the principal providers of new subsidised housing. Local authorities need to consult the Housing Corporation on housing association schemes planned for their districts and can consider sponsoring housing association schemes themselves. My Department promotes close consultation at local level, which in most areas appears to be working increasingly well.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table, listing by each housing association the address of the properties sold under consents given under section 9 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 granted by the Housing Corporation for(a) 1988–89, (b) 1989–90, and (c) 1990–91 to date.

  Sir George Young:
  This is a matter for the Housing Corporation. I have therefore asked the corporation to respond to the hon. Member direct.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list in the Official Report how many new houses have been built by housing associations in the Easington district council area, giving the name of the association and the location of the new build for each year since 1979;

  (2) how many council houses have been sold by Easington district council; and how many new houses have been built in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  A table showing the available information on sales for each English local authority for each financial year since 1986–87 and with a cumulative total to September 1990 was recently placed in the Library,Official Report, Volume 184, column 542.

  Figures for housebuilding completions by the local authority and by housing associations in the Easington district council area in 1979 are shown in table 4(b) of "Local Housing Statistics: England & Wales", No. 59 (November 1981). Figures for the years 1980 to 1989 are shown in tables 1.1 to 1.10 of "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas 1980 to 1989", and those for the first half of 1990 are shown in table 1 of "Local Housing Statistics: England & Wales", No. 95 (October 1990). Copies of these publications are in the Library. Information about individual housing associations and the location of the dwellings built within the local authority area is not held by the Department.
  527
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been bought as a percentage of housing stock in each parliamentary constituency in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information is not available for sales by parliamentary constituency. A table showing the available information on sales for each English local authority was recently placed in the Library,Official Report, Volume 184, column 542. It shows information for each financial year since 1986–87 together with cumulative sales figures for the period April 1979 to September 1990 and the proportion of stock sold during that period.

  Late returns from Blaby and Rutland revise the totals shown in the tables as follows:

  Sales 1 April 1979 to 30 September 1990

  Sales as a persentage of stock

  Blaby

  rtb sales

  1,011

  26·1

  all sales

  1,061

  27·4

  of which flats

  16

  —

  Rutland

  rtb sales

  592

  24·7

  all sales

  681

  28·5

  of which flats

  1

  —

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of the community charge.

  Mr. Key
  Discussions with local authority associations and those parties who have accepted our offer to take part in consultations continue. I hope to be able to give a first indication of our thinking in the spring.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now announce the results of his review of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  No.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been included in the revenue support grant settlement for(a) the costs of providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation and (b) the costs of private sector leasing in each of the years 1990–91 and 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The standard spending assessments on which distribution of revenue support grant is based do not make a separately identifiable provision for the costs of providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation or for private sector leasing. But the settlement aggregates for 1990–91 and 1991–92 do take into account the cost of providing temporary and short-term accommodation outside the housing revenue account.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much assistance a couple living in a property of half average rateable value in Dartford will receive under the community charge reduction scheme in 1992.

  Mr. Key
  If Dartford borough council sets its community charge next year at or above £339, a couple 528
  who have not moved since 31 March 1990 living in a property of half average rateable value could look forward to a reduction of £373 between them.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete the review of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement on the progress the review is making in finding an alternative to the poll tax.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the poll tax and alternatives to it; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Mr. Key
  I hope to be able to give a first indication of our thinking in the spring, but the review will continue until we are satisfied that we have identified the building blocks to provide a stable and just basis for the future development of local government.

  Integrated Pollution Control
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the provisions of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be fully implemented.

  Mr. Trippier
  Implementation will start on 1 April 1991 and be completed by 1 April 1996.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the timetable for the implementation of integrated pollution control under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  Subject to Parliament's approval of the necessary regulations, integrated pollution control will come into effect for all new processes and substantial changes to existing processes from 1 April. Existing processes will be phased in over a five-year period, starting with large combustion plants for which applications will be required by 30 April. More details will be given in general guidance on IPC, to be published shortly.

  Environment White Paper
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on implementing the proposals set out in the White Paper on the environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn).

  Local Councils
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to increase the number of parish and town councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend has powers only to create new parishes where this is recommended by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The work of parish and town councils is, however, relevant to the current review of local government.

  Country Conservancy Councils
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the joint co-ordinating committee of the country conservancy councils to discuss funding.

  Mr. Trippier
  I plan to have a general discussion with the chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on 4 March.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he will be making at the EC Environment Council on 18 March in respect of the environmental implications of the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I discussed the Gulf oil spill with my European Community partners during the meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris on 30 January and the forthcoming Environment Council will give us an opportunity to continue those discussions.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority jobs have been lost as a result of the compulsory competitive tendering legislation under the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department does not have this information for the generality of local authorities. Research carried out for my Department by the Institute of Local Government Studies at the university of Birmingham shows that significant reductions have been achieved in the level of manual staff engaged on activities subject to competition, largely without major redundancies.

  House Completions
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were completed in the United Kingdom in 1980 and 1990, respectively; and how many he expects to be completed in 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures for housebuilding in Northern Ireland for 1990 as a whole are not yet available, but taking Great Britain alone there were 235,500 housing completions in 1980 and a provisional estimate of about 184,000 completions in 1990. The Department does make forecasts of total housebuilding starts and completions.

  Recycling Credits
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects recycling credits to be introduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No decision has yet been made on when recycling credits will be introduced.

  Hostel Places
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of hostel places available in London for homeless people which are either provided or funded by his Department on 24 February.
  530
  Sir George Young
  Housing associations, which can benefit from funding from my Department's programmes, provide about 20,000 hostel places in London.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the chairperson of the National Rivers Authority to discuss river pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  I meet Lord Crickhowell regularly to discuss matters relating to the National River Authority's responsibilities for the water environment, including water pollution.

  Beach Pollution
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received in connection with beach pollution in East Anglia.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations concerning the sewerage improvement programme for bathing waters in East Anglia. I am pleased to say that the Government's policy on enhanced treatment for coastal and estuarial discharges is being steadily implemented and in 1990 93 per cent. of the region's identified bathing waters met the relevant standards of the directive.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend his proposed hostel scheme for single homeless people to other areas with acute housing problems outside London; and if he will make it his policy that any such extension would not be only for major cities.

  Sir George Young
  Our first priority is to focus our measures to help the single homeless in central London, where the problem of rough sleeping is at its most acute. We will consider the case for extending the rough sleepers initiative to other parts of the country, once we have seen how it works in London.

  National Parks
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to bring forward legislation ensuring increased protection for national parks in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no such plans at present.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites of special scientific interest in the county of Durham; and whether further possible sites are under consideration for designation.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that there are currently 69 sites of special scientific interest in Durham. Further sites are under consideration. I am writing to the hon. Member with the details.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the reasons for transferring the scheme to provide insulation of low income
  531
  households from his Department to the Energy Efficiency Office; and if he will outline the level of support offered through that scheme in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department's homes insulation scheme, under which local authorities provided grants to low-income households for loft, tank and pipe insulation was not transferred to the Energy Efficiency Office. With some 90 per cent. of lofts insulated, the scheme was replaced last April by minor works assistance, under which grants for a wider range of thermal insulation measures are available for private sector householders at the discretion of local authorities. Similar help for council tenants is provided under estate action and the housing investment programme. The energy action grants agency introduced the Department of Energy's home energy efficiency scheme on 1 January 1991 in order to reinforce the help available to low-income households for small insulation works.

  Expenditure on the homes insulation scheme in England is set out in the table:

  £ million

  1979–80

  16·1

  1980–81

  16·1

  1981–82

  23·7

  1982–3

  29·4

  1983–84

  24·9

  1984–85

  25·2

  1985–86

  27·6

  1986–87

  25·2

  1987–88

  21·3

  1988–89

  7·2

  11989–90

  7·0

  1 Provisional.

  A38 (Planning)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that planning applications for hotels and service stations along the A38 Exeter-Plymouth road will be turned down on appeal until a decision as to the future status of the A38 has been determined by the Department of Transport.

  Sir George Young
  No. Every planning appeal must be considered on its merits, but proposals that involve changes or additions to the highway network will be a material consideration wherever they affect planning appeals.

  Rented Deposit Scheme
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to announce the details of the rental deposit scheme announced by the then Minister for Housing in June 1990.

  Sir George Young
  We are presently considering a proposal by the Notting Hill housing trust for a pilot project for a rent deposit fund, to begin in April. Notting Hill housing trust proposes to operate the fund in conjunction with the Threshold housing advice centre and Riverpoint, a voluntary agency working with the single homeless.

  Rateable Values
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached on the rating valuation of property located in areas which lose enterprise zone status.
  532
  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has today laid regulations under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to provide that when enterprise zones cease and non-domestic property becomes rateable, the rents of the property should be discounted for the purposes of assessing rateable values. This will ensure that any effect on rents at 1 April 1988 brought about by the existence of a zone will not affect rateable values of property in its former area.

  So that the occupants of property in zones that are to cease may know their likely future liabilities, local valuation officers will produce schedules of the likely rateable values of property they expect to enter in local rating lists. These will be available for inspection at the relevant local valuation office and charging authority offices. There will be no right of challenge to the rateable values in the schedules: the usual appeal rights will accompany the alteration of rating lists when zones end.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce agricultural pollution in water.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have today laid before the House regulations made under the Water Act 1989 that from I March 1991 will set minimum national standards that must be met by silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil installations. I am delighted to have been able to act so swiftly to implement a commitment in the environment White Paper.

  These regulations reflect the Government's determination to reduce the unacceptably high number of pollution incidents caused by agriculture which have been reported in recent years. They supplement the general requirement under the Water Act 1989 for farmers to avoid pollution. This may require farmers in particular local circumstances to take additional precautions.

  The regulations will apply to all new or substantially extended and reconstructed installations. The National Rivers Authority will also be able to require that existing installations meet some or all of the standards in cases where there is a significant risk of pollution.

  These regulations represent one of a number of measures being taken by the Government to reduce farm pollution. These include the availability of generous grant aid towards waste handling facilities, and the provision of free initial advice to help farmers avoid pollution.

  We shall keep the operation of the regulations under review and introduce further measures if necessary.

  Antifouling Paints
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue public information leaflets providing guidelines to small boat owners who have previously painted their vessels with organotin-based antifouling paints.

  Mr. Baldry
  Regulations restricting and eventually banning the use of triorganotin-based antifouling paints on small boats came into effect in the United Kingdom in 1986 and 1987. Information leaflets giving small boat owners advice on the removal of such paints were published in 1986 and 1988 by the Royal Yachting Association and the Department of the Environment. Copies are still available on request.
  533
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to establish uniform industrial process instructions and regulations for the application, removal and disposal of all organotin-based antifouling paints, residues and discharges which have developed from their application in boat yards or dry docks, including certification of operators for application and removal.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department issued a consultation paper and draft regulations, "The Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations", last October. We proposed to include the application of tributyl- and triphenyl-tin antifouling paints within the scope of the regulations. The results of this consultation are still being considered, but it is hoped to lay regulations shortly. Relevant controls also exist under the Pesticides Regulations (Food and Environmental Protection Act 1986) which are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. I understand that the executive, in conjunction with industry, has set standards of training for anyone involved in the application and removal of antifouling paints.

DEFENCE

  Physiotherapists
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many physiotherapists called up from the reserve since the start of the Gulf crisis have had appeals against their call-up allowed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Only the Army called out physiotherapists from the reserve force. Ten of those who reported appealed, and six appeals were allowed by the on-site non-statutory panel specially convened to consider such cases.

  One further individual whose claim was rejected by the on-site panel was subsequently released from military service following a successful appeal to the Army board under the provisions of section 181 of the Army Act 1955.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of established posts for physiotherapists in each of the three armed services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current number of established physiotherapist posts for regular service personnel in each of the armed forces is:

  Number

  Royal Navy

  26

  Army

  41

  RAF

  32

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many regular physiotherapists there are in each of the three armed services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current strengths of regular physiotherapists in each of the three services is:

  Number

  RN

  18

  Army

  19

  RAF

  23

  534
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many physiotherapsists have been called up from the reserves since the start of the Gulf crisis.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Twenty Army physiotherapsists were called out from the Army reserve forces and three individuals from the Territorial Army volunteered. Six individual reservists and the three members of the Territorial Army are currently serving.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many physiotherapists are now serving in the armed forces as(a) regular and (b) reserve forces in (1) the United Kingdom (2) the Gulf and (3) elsewhere overseas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following table shows where both Regular and embodied reservist physiotherapists are deployed:

  Service

  United Kingdom

  Gulf

  Elsewhere

  Royal Navy regular

  14

  2

  2

  Royal Navy reserve

  —

  —

  —

  Army regular

  7

  8

  4

  Army reserve

  2

  7

  —

  Royal Air Force regular

  13

  5

  5

  Royal Air Force reserve

  —

  —

  —

  Empty Property (Greenwich)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many empty properties are owned by the Ministry of Defence in the London borough of Greenwich.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1990 there were 125 empty MOD dwellings in the London borough of Greenwich out of a total stock of 711. The majority of these are undergoing major maintenance work, allotted to service families or already in the process of disposal.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current daily cost of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current full daily operating cost of our involvement in the Gulf conflict is estimated to be over £4·5 million per day.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning military nuclear research and development at the Iraqi research establishment at Taji and Al-Qaqaa.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Both Taji and Al-Qaqaa are believed to be military associated plants and may be involved in research related to the development of nuclear weapons.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the marginal tax rate for disability working allowance claimants in receipt of community charge benefit and housing benefit if the taper in disability working allowance was set at(a) 70 per cent., (b) 40 per cent. or (c) 15 per cent.
  535
  Mr. Scott
  The combined effect on net income of the disability working allowance, housing benefit and community charge benefit tapers, where all of these applied, would be a marginal deduction rate of 94 per cent. if the disability working allowance taper were set at 70 per cent., 88 per cent. if the DWA taper were set at 40 per cent. and 83 per cent. if the DWA taper were set at 15 per cent.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the cost of including an amount in respect of mortgage interest in the calculation of the disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Estimates for the disability working allowance (DWA) have necessarily been based to a significant extent on assumptions about behavioural changes among disabled people who are not currently in work. As a result, any estimate of the cost of including an amount in respect of mortgage interest in the calculation of DWA can be only tentative. We estimate, however, that the benefit cost would be of the order of £10 million.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the cost of raising the capital disregard in disability working allowance to £5,000.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 5 February at column 445–46.

  Disability
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he has taken to inform local officers of the increase in the income support applicable amount for claimants in receipt of a disability premium introduced in July 1990 under the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1990 (SI 1990, No. 1168).

  Miss Widdecombe
  A circular was issued to local offices in June 1990 to inform them of the increase in the applicable amount for claimants aged 16 to 17 who qualify for the disability premium.

  Income Support
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims were received for income support in each district council area of Wales during 1990; and how many of these claims came from(a) pensioners, (b) the unemployed and (c) others.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information in the form requested is not available. Data are not collected for district council areas and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Data are therefore given for DSS local office areas.

  DSS Local Office

  Pensioners

  Single Parents

  Disabled and Sick

  Unemployed

  Other

  Total

  Aberdare

  1,843

  1,120

  729

  2,210

  512

  6,414

  Abertillery

  750

  466

  294

  892

  269

  2,671

  Aberystwyth

  1,433

  510

  431

  1,377

  478

  4,229

  Ammanford

  1,222

  470

  346

  908

  253

  3,199

  Anglesey

  2,321

  927

  532

  2,265

  497

  6,542

  Bargoed

  1,116

  970

  871

  1,617

  511

  5,085

  Barry

  2,370

  1,472

  596

  2,345

  455

  7,238

  Blackwood

  1,180

  585

  552

  1,063

  317

  3,697

  Bridgend

  3,726

  1,944

  1,317

  4,065

  1,114

  12,166

  Caernarfon

  2,092

  832

  412

  2,172

  433

  5,941

  Caerphilly

  1,611

  1,096

  792

  1,995

  564

  6,058

  536

  DSS local office

  Pensioners

  Unemployed

  Others

  Total

  Aberdare

  530

  3,775

  1,736

  6,041

  Abertillery

  215

  1,560

  816

  2,591

  Aberystwyth

  405

  3,367

  1,022

  4,794

  Ammanford

  488

  1,986

  915

  3,389

  Anglesey

  545

  4,209

  1,114

  5,868

  Bargoed

  283

  2,646

  1,428

  4,357

  Barry

  852

  4,721

  1,592

  7,165

  Blackwood

  363

  2,572

  1,288

  4,223

  Bridgend

  856

  6,604

  2,582

  10,042

  Caernarfon

  384

  3,556

  948

  4,888

  Caerphilly

  343

  3,066

  1,268

  4,677

  Cardiff Central

  919

  5,670

  1,623

  8,212

  Cardiff East

  652

  6,559

  2,211

  9,422

  Cardiff West

  602

  5,489

  2,043

  8,134

  Carmarthen

  560

  2,401

  1,028

  3,989

  Colwyn Bay

  1,084

  4,368

  1,439

  6,891

  Cwmbran

  1,098

  6,600

  2,689

  10,387

  Deeside

  466

  3,287

  1,429

  5,182

  Ebbw Vale

  700

  3,548

  1,747

  5,995

  Haverfordwest

  461

  3,887

  1,440

  5,788

  Llanelli

  738

  4,164

  2,017

  6,919

  Merthyr Tydfil

  506

  3,620

  1,746

  5,872

  Morriston

  784

  4,254

  3,567

  8,605

  Neath

  618

  3,739

  1,549

  5,906

  Newport

  1,313

  10,361

  3,305

  14,979

  Newtown

  501

  3,159

  1,395

  5,055

  Pembroke Dock

  397

  2,563

  906

  3,866

  Pontypridd

  493

  4,460

  1,456

  6,409

  Porth

  349

  2,335

  1,346

  4,030

  Porthmadog

  439

  3,154

  1,055

  4,648

  Port Talbot

  392

  3,007

  1,726

  5,125

  Rhyl

  1,258

  6,342

  2,327

  9,927

  Swansea

  1,554

  10,103

  3,479

  15,136

  Tonypandy

  462

  2,753

  1,602

  4,817

  Wrexham

  1,416

  7,676

  2,988

  12,080

  Note:

  All data derived from statistics for claims received in 1990.

  Income Support
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of people currently in receipt of income support in each district council area in Wales; and in each case if he will show how many are(a) pensioners, (b) single parents, (c) disabled people and those classified as sick under the age of 60 years, (d) unemployed and (e) other.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information in the form requested is unavailable. Data are not collected for district council areas and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Data are therefore given for DSS local office areas. Data are based on income support statistical groups and some people may satisfy the conditions for inclusion in more than one group. These cases are, however, classified under only one group.
  537

  DSS Local Office

  Pensioners

  Single Parents

  Disabled and Sick

  Unemployed

  Other

  Total

  Cardiff Central

  3,496

  1,459

  785

  2,753

  781

  9,274

  Cardiff East

  3,075

  2,686

  1,081

  5,223

  966

  13,031

  Cardiff West

  2,935

  2,055

  891

  4,005

  1,095

  10,981

  Carmarthen

  1,468

  443

  375

  1,075

  230

  3,591

  Colwyn Bay

  3,396

  1,017

  570

  1,840

  534

  7,357

  Cwmbran

  3,809

  1,889

  1,139

  3,306

  817

  10,960

  Deeside

  1,975

  893

  604

  1,112

  541

  5,125

  Ebbw Vale

  2,365

  942

  670

  1,577

  564

  6,118

  Haverfordwest

  1,995

  871

  525

  1,918

  414

  5,723

  Llanelli

  3,262

  1,013

  814

  2,087

  624

  7,800

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,150

  1,563

  871

  2,320

  604

  7,508

  Morriston

  2,675

  1,481

  786

  2,515

  528

  7,985

  Neath

  2,135

  836

  678

  1,454

  426

  5,529

  Newport

  5,593

  3,540

  1,559

  5,215

  1,291

  17,198

  Newtown

  1,976

  912

  309

  1,433

  299

  4,929

  Pembroke Dock

  1,257

  564

  372

  1,426

  242

  3,861

  Pontypridd

  2,054

  1,134

  732

  1,975

  515

  6,410

  Porth

  1,362

  822

  709

  1,505

  339

  4,737

  Porthmadog

  2,111

  512

  340

  1,582

  311

  4,856

  Port Talbot

  1,721

  884

  796

  1,133

  531

  5,065

  Rhyl

  4,511

  1,522

  1,015

  2,871

  1,438

  11,357

  Swansea

  6,219

  2,581

  1,577

  5,877

  1,620

  17,874

  Tonypandy

  1,849

  777

  840

  1,621

  418

  5,505

  Wrexham

  5,202

  2,220

  1,248

  3,408

  1,016

  13,094

  Note:

  All data derived from 30 November 1990 count of cases in action, which include a number of cases where payment has ceased but other action is continuing.

  Pensions
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost at current rates of equalising the qualifying age for the receipt of the basic pension for both sexes at(a) 60 years and (b) 62 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost of paying state retirement pension from age 60 to men has been estimated at about £3,000 million a year in 1985–86 prices.

  The cost of equalising the qualifying age of state pension for both sexes at 60 and 62 years at the current rates is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have some form of second income to add to the basic state pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1987, 84 per cent. of pensioners received some form Of income in addition to the retirement pension and other state benefits.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many statutory instruments and other items of delegated legislation by class relating to the responsibilities of his Department have since 1979 been made(a) in total, (b) after debate on the Floor of the House, (c) after debate in Committee and (d) in any other category.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Such information as is readily available is in the table.
  538

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Year

  Delegated legislation

  1979

  101

  1980

  132

  1981

  100

  1982

  145

  1983

  125

  1984

  132

  1985

  133

  1986

  105

  1987

  154

  1988

  134

  Department of Social Security

  Year

  Delegated legislation

  1989

  59

  1990

  81

  11991

  12

  1 To 22 February.

  Session

  Made after debate in both Houses

  1988–89

  7

  1989–90

  9

  1990–91

  0

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of severe weather payments there were in the Seaham and Peterlee area in the week beginning 4 February; and how many people who could qualify within the Government criteria for payment there are in the same areas.
  539
  Mr. Scott
  The number of recipients of cold weather payments in the Seaham and Peterlee area is currently unavailable. As soon as it becomes available it will be placed in the Library.

  The number of people in the area who could qualify for cold weather payments within the current entitlement criteria could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to amend the income support regulations relating to the award of severe disability premium to persons receiving attendance allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The income support regulations provide for the severe disability premium to be awarded to people with attendance allowance who live in private households on their own, or with someone else on a commercial basis, provided no-one gets invalid care allowance for their care. On 21 February 1991 the Court of Appeal, in the case of Foster, confirmed that the Social Security Act 1986 provides the power to make these rules. We have no plans to change this arrangement.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to his Department of the appeal case of the Secretary of State for Social Security and of the chief adjudication officer v. Foster relating to awards of severe disability premium; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not routinely kept about internal costs of individual cases which go to the Court of Appeal, since the legal work involved is part of the normal function of the solicitor's office. Fees to counsel and to the court are not yet fully known, but are expected to be about £2,000 in total.

  Social Fund, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the social fund budget for the Newcastle East, Newcastle West and Newcastle St. James offices of his Department in the financial years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, in each case distinguishing between grants and loans; and what was the outturn expenditure for the same offices for 1989–90, distinguishing between grants and loans;

  (2) what was the number of, and expenditure on (a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans in each successive quarter since April 1989 in each of the three offices serving Newcastle.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is available in the Library.

  Maternity Benefit
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the financial consequences to his Department in the payment of maternity benefit if the legal time limit defining still birth were reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks.
  540
  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that if maternity benefits were payable in respect of still births occurring between the 24th and 28th weeks of pregnancy, the additional benefit cost would be of the order of £0·5 million.

  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the total number of consultants to medical appeal tribunals who are aged(a) under 35 years, (b) 35 to 50 years, (c) 50 to 65 years and (d) over 65 years;

  (2) if he will list the criteria used when appointing consultants to medical appeal tribunals; and what is (i) the minimum and (ii) the maximum period for appointees to medical appeal tribunals;

  (3) if he will list the total number of women consultants who have been appointed to medical appeal tribunals in the Northern region in each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of medical appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals, His Honour Judge Derek Holden. The hon. Member may care to contact his office direct to obtain this information.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give, for the latest date available, a list of his Department's offices with the number of cases with a poll tax deduction in place at each.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 1 February 1991, at columns 672–74.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage take-up of family credit for each of the years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on proposals to increase the current level.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 February 1991]: It is clear from research and administrative information that family circumstances change frequently. These changes mean that families move into and out of eligibility for family credit and that consequently there are constant changes in the eligible population for this benefit.

  The best estimate of family credit take-up is for 1988. This is based upon a special clerical examination of all family expenditure survey returns for the period April to December 1988. This showed that, for employees, about 65 per cent. of available family credit expenditure was being claimed by about 50 per cent. of the eligible population.

  The number of people successfully claiming family credit depends upon maintaining a high level of public awareness about information on how the benefit might help individual families. Our latest publicity programme, which started on 11 February, has therefore been designed to promote awareness among those who are, or could become, eligible for family credit.

  Milk and Vitamins
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of extending the entitlement under income support to free milk and vitamins for expectant and nursing mothers and children under five to people claiming family credit.
  542
  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The estimated cost of providing free welfare milk and vitamins to children under five and expectant and nursing mothers in receipt of family credit in England in 1991–92 would be £17 million. When family credit was introduced in 1988 the children's rates were set at higher cash levels In place of allowing free welfare milk.

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

The Baltic States
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will arrange a ministerial visit to the Baltic states before next September.
Lord Reay: My Lords, at present we have no such plans.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a ministerial visit in advance of the human rights conference planned to take place in Moscow in September would be a real indication of our desire to see peaceful negotiations followed by national self-determination in the Baltic states?
Lord Reay: My Lords, our long-standing practice is to avoid such visits in view of our non-recognition of the Soviet annexation of those states. In our view such visits now would not help; they could complicate an already delicate situation by giving a wrong impression of our policy.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that statement will be received with some joy by many people? It must surely be wrong for us to interfere with the affairs of the Soviet Union—and we might at the same time not tell them to mind their own business about the Middle East!
Lord Reay: My Lords, our policy is to encourage the Soviet authorities and the elected governments of the Baltic republics to bring about a peaceful resolution of their dispute.

Battersea Power Station: Future
2.38 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to save Battersea Power Station from further dereliction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, in matters such as this the Government have no direct involvement. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State uses his statutory advisers, English Heritage, and they are in regular touch with the owner and his agents and are monitoring the situation closely.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the more comprehensive Answer than she was able to give earlier to my Written Question. Is she aware that it is fortunate that the Department of the Environment is taking an interest in this matter? As I understand the position—and perhaps she will tell the House whether I am right or
970
wrong—negotiations are taking place on the future of the Battersea Power Station and I believe that they are taking place between the owner, Wandsworth Borough Council, and English Heritage. Can she give the House any information on the present state of affairs? Are things going well? Is the building likely to be protected or is it deteriorating? In fact is the situation dangerous?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Negotiations are taking place. It is important to understand the Secretary of State's powers in this matter. The negotiations are on the basis of an application for a specific proposal between Wandsworth Council and the agent, and English Heritage is advising. I know that English Heritage has pressed and continues to press for urgent repairs. My understanding is that the building is not dangerous and that John Broome and his company are responding to that request.
Lord Jay: My Lords, can the Minister explain why 10 years of combined effort by all the resources of private enterprise and the Conservative Wandsworth Borough Council, have so far produced only a muddle?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it needs to be understood that this is an extraordinarily expensive project. It is very much in the hands of an applicant who has a particular plan, has submitted it and received listed building consent. Negotiations are continuing in that vein.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if the desire is that private enterprise should develop this important site in a way that will be beneficial to the nation as a whole, the less that the Government have to do with it the better and they ought not to give the impression of stepping in to meddle at all?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not in agreement with that sentiment, but it would be entirely inappropriate and in fact not constitutionally right for the Government to interfere.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware that some 40 years ago, when the power station was erected, it drew wide protest from the environment lobby? It is a hideous building which looks more like an upturned table than anything else. As it no longer has any practical use, does she agree that it would be better to let it be demolished?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is about the best example that I can think of as to how one cannot win on these matters. There is a project being pursued and we hope that it will come to fruition. However, any application for demolition would have to be considered on its merits.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the view that this concerns just four hideous industrial chimneys is quite widespread? Does she agree that it would be much better to have the whole structure pulled down and have an excellent building in its own right put up instead?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that the application that is the subject now of this Question is in fact a very interesting one. Should it come to fruition I think that it will be a pleasing project.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the situation at Battersea Power Station is only symptomatic of what is taking place in many of the other ambitious inner city developments that were triggered off by the Government's policies? Urban and city development councils must now abandon plans or slow them down because of the present economic situation. What do the Government intend to do about that? Are the inner cities to be left as deserts?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government's record on inner city regeneration is a very good one and is wholly comparable with anything that has gone before. In terms of the economy, I believe that the news that we have had today is a very good indication that that is under control.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that no foundations were built under Battersea Power Station which makes it rather difficult for redevelopment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a technical question. I am unable to answer it but I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, before yielding to the blandishments of those who wish to pull down this large building, will the Government bear in mind that however ugly it may be it is certain that whatever takes its place will be uglier still?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no comment.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that not everyone agrees with the two noble Lords who have criticised the architecture? Is she aware that many people feel that by its simplicity this building by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott is particularly fine and worthy of preservation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment. The purpose of listing is not necessarily to list beautiful buildings but also important buildings which are significant at the time at which they were built.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is there no possibility that Battersea Power Station might revert to its previous use, perhaps being gas-fired with a combined heat and power system?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is the subject of another Question—and another application.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we have heard differing views in the House about the merits of the building. It is nonetheless a building by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, who is an architect of considerable esteem. Does the Minister agree that it is not a building to be despised? Will she ask her right honourable friend to keep an eye on matters? If negotiations drag on for too long so that the building deteriorates, that will not please anybody.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of course we shall keep an eye on matters. With regard to the first comment of the noble Lord, feelings run high on whether or not it is desirable, but it is an important building.

World Bank: Forestry Policy
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will use their influence to ensure that the World Bank will not finance projects which destroy or degrade tropical forests.
Lord Reay: My Lords, yes, the World Bank is engaged in a major review of its forestry policy. Our Executive Director and his staff have had, and will continue to have, detailed discussions with bank staff on the new policy. We are also encouraging the bank to consult knowledgeable non-governmental organisations. We anticipate that the bank will publish in July the results of its review which we expect to place particular emphasis on sustainable forest management and conservation.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very encouraging Answer. Is it not a fact that in the past developments have concentrated on the economic benefits of forest exploitation without taking into account the goods and services which are presently provided by forests and the cost of moving the indigenous population? Will he assure the House that those considerations will be included in the calculation in the future and that a sustainable development will be the basis of the discussions that take place?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that some of those bad practices may have occurred in the past. However, the World Bank now looks in great detail not only at the economic aspects but also the environmental and social aspects of projects which come up for appraisal. Very detailed guidelines are issued to all bank staff involved in appraising the projects. It is very strictly controlled by the board. I therefore believe that many complaints made in the past do not apply now.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, will my noble friend at the same time encourage the World Bank to develop low-cost equipment which enables sunny but poor countries better to utilise solar energy? That will result not only in a saving of money but alleviate women's drudgery and save the rainforests at the same time.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is making a wise proposal. I should think that the World Bank has already investigated the possibilities of solar energy. However, I am happy to pass on her proposal.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1989 an estimated 1.8 per cent. of the world's tropical rainforest was destroyed? Does he agree that one of the problems is that third world countries often are forced to plunder their timber resources in order to pay their overseas debt? Has the Minister any new initiatives to deal with indebtedness in third world countries?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have been doing a considerable amount in that field. Noble Lords may remember that my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister announced an additional £100 million which was to be devoted exactly to the forestry sector. Projects under this amount have been proceeding.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that prominent world scientists now put the destruction of the rainforests as a major threat to mankind, followed by all things nuclear, the destruction of the ozone layer, and waste products from the chemicals industry?
Lori Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with the thrust of my noble friend's question. Some 17 million to 20 million hectares disappear each year. It is clear that stopping the loss of tropical forests is one of the most urgent environmental challenges that the world faces.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister congratulate the environmental lobby on its new enthusiasm for forestry? Will that be interpreted in the UK by an extension of the forestry industry?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are in touch with the lobbies in this field. Friends of the Earth has been kind enough to make arrangements for the ODA to receive more than 20,000 postcards from its members and other members of the public. They draw attention to what it sees as being the irresponsible actions of the timber trade as regards tropical deforestation. We do not entirely agree with that view but it is an example of the contact that we have.

Health Authorities: Contracts Overseas
2.50 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they approve of health authorities seeking to make contracts for treatment with hospitals in France.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the question does not arise. Health authorities do not have powers to make general contracts for the treatment overseas of patients normally resident in England and Wales. Under European Community regulations, however, individual patients can be referred elsewhere in the Community for treatment but only with the prior authorisation of the Department of Health.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is it correct that the Medway Health Authority is actively considering arranging contracts with the Boulogne general hospital? The director of that hospital was interviewed on television last week and he said that they were setting up the scheme. If there were such a scheme, what would be the situation regarding the negligence of the French hospital or doctor? Would the British patient and/or the health authority have to pursue their claims through the French legal system?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the department has not received any approaches from the Medway Health
974
Authority. Authorisations are normally granted by the department only in individual cases. However, we are aware that an approach from the Boulogne hospital to staff at the Medway Health Authority has led to reciprocal visits. We must consider any details resulting from that when an approach is made to the department.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if there were an increase in the number of British patients having to be treated in hospitals overseas would it not be a condemnation of the Government's present policy of closing British hospitals and wards? Will she endeavour to change that policy so that British people can go to British hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, many people might be discouraged from going further afield for treatment. It may not be widely known that in France patients generally must pay up to 20 per cent. of the costs of their medical treatment. In addition, patients going to another country must consider their travel costs and other related costs. Therefore, I see no strong temptation for shoals of British patients to seek treatment outside our excellent National Health Service.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question concerning medical negligence and the BMA? Is she aware that when the director of the Boulogne general hospital was interviewed on television he said that they have been conducting discussions for two years and are planning a medical away-day programme whereby one can travel to France in the morning, have one's operation and return in the evening?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as our system is based on proof of negligence any extra-territorial application would be bound by the system in which the negligent act was performed.

Business of the House
2.53 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Thursday 28th February.—(Lord Waddington.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, unfortunately, I was unable to be present in your Lordships' House to hear all the discussions on the Bill yesterday. However, I have read Hansard and noticed that my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe made a contribution. He said:
"I merely ask the noble Lord to confirm in his reply that there will be adequate time for discussion during the later stages of the Bill's proceedings".—[Official Report, 26/2/91; col. 878.]
The noble Lord the Leader of the House said:

975
"I can promise the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, that there will be ample time for discussion of these matters about which he is concerned. With those few words, I commend the Bill to the House".—[Official Report, 26/2/91; col. 880.]
It appears to me that adequate time has not been given. If noble Lords wish to propose amendments to the Bill they will hardly have had sufficient time to frame and table them. The Second Reading was only yesterday and we are to have the Committee stage and remaining stages tomorrow. I wish to hear the comments of the noble Lord the Leader of the House about that matter.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, there is nothing unusual in the Motion. It has been agreed through the usual channels. I have had an opportunity to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. He is satisfied that he will have ample opportunity to raise a particular issue, even under these procedures.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Structure and Financing
2.55 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham Lord Rippon of Hexham rose to call attention to the need to review the structure and finance of local government; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest as President of the Association of District Councils. To that extent I am associated with its views on making services closer to the people and more responsive to their needs. Needless to say, however, anything that I say today is entirely my own responsibility.
I welcome the Government's decision to review the functions, structure and finance of local government. I welcome in particular the indication given by the Secretary of State for the Environment that with all political parties there will be an attempt to establish common principles on the future role and direction of local government. The review is intended to find the basis of stability in central and local government relationships. Stability is an aspect that we have seen little of lately in this field.
We should realise from the outset that it would be hopeless to try and make major changes in the basis of local taxation or structure without a considerable degree of consensus—I understand that that is no longer a dirty word in politics —about the nature and purpose of those changes. Not all change is for the better, as we have learnt from bitter experience. Nor is change for the better accomplished without difficulty. But if, as I believe, local government's convalescence from the hammer blows that it has suffered in recent years cannot be hurried, some immediate action must be taken to remedy present ills.
Undoubtedly the Secretary of State has made a good start with his community charge reduction scheme. It will provide £1.7 billion in extra help for those who have suffered most from the poll tax. Again, I understand that we may now call it by that name. However, I do not believe that that goes far
976
enough. The general level of charge will still be far higher than was originally envisaged. I take as my starting point a document that I hold in my hand and which may be of special appeal to some people. It was issued on Wednesday 28th August 1974 by the right honourable Margaret Thatcher, Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment (as she then was). She stated:
"in the medium term, we shall transfer to central government the cost of teachers' salaries up to a specified number of teachers for each local education authority. Expenditure on police and the fire services will qualify for increased grants from the Exchequer. We shall see that this saving is passed on to the ratepayer".
I always believed that that was a very good first step that could be taken. We are talking about grants and not the transfer of administrative functions. That is quite different from the proposition advanced by some people: that the whole responsibility for education as well as its costs should be shifted to Whitehall.
Under the scheme suggested by Mrs. Thatcher, local authorities would still be responsible for the administration of the services that they provide. If the general level of local taxation and expenditure are reduced in that way, then funds must come from some other form of taxation but not to the extent of the total cost of the education service. That would be very high. As I see it, that is a short-term fix leaving the way clear, without prejudice, for a more general review in the future.
We must contemplate reversing the tendency to shift financial burdens from taxes to rates. I regard an increase in national income tax to meet nationally determined expenditure preferable to a system of local income tax which would be difficult to introduce. I regard as important the establishment of the principle that expenditure determined nationally should be paid for nationally, leaving councils to raise by local taxation the full cost of what they regard as being required locally including, for example, more or more highly-paid teachers.
Perhaps I may turn to the community charge or poll tax. It always seemed to me that the case for that rested fundamentally on one argument alone, although admittedly a strong one; namely, that it would make local councils more accountable to their electors. The principle of accountability was fatally undermined by the continuation of rate capping. Some of your Lordships may recall that when he was Secretary of State for the Environment Mr. Kenneth Baker put the matter quite plainly. He said:
"Community charge capping would be intellectually dishonest".
It is also politically inept because rate capping leaves only the Government to be held accountable for any council's failure to respond to local needs. I am sure that our own Prime Minister would agree, as a former Lambeth councillor, that it should be left to the electors to judge whether Lambeth is or is not administered better than, for example, Wandsworth.
Having reduced the general level of the poll tax, I would immediately abolish rate capping. I would abolish also the present controls over spending capital receipts from the sale of council houses. In the Hexham Courant last week I read that in my old constituency of Hexham, the Tynedale District

977
Council, which I know to be a responsible body, wants to spend some of its £8 million capital receipts on much needed low cost housing. It has received a letter from the department—and I shall not say from whom —that that cannot be done because any government must regulate gross public expenditure, including spending from receipts, in the interests of managing the national economy. That is nonsense. As long as central government control borrowing —which they do—spending those receipts has only a minimal effect, if any, upon the management of the national e appeconomy. Indeed, I should have thought that some much needed investment might be good when it comes to managing the national economy at present.
I want to see—and this is in line with the Secretary of State's objectives—the establishment of a better division between the responsibilities which rightly belong to Whitehall and those carried out by councils. I do not believe that anyone could deny that in recent years we have become an increasingly centralised society. We must halt and reverse that process.
Having said what I believe should be done now, I take a more cautious view about long-term reforms. Throughout my political life I have heard every political party pay lip service to local democracy. However, we have never faced up to the need to consider together financial matters, areas, boundaries and functions. As a result, we have staggered from one expedient to another with no clear philosophy or any sense of direction. At last we are invited to consider all those matters together and comprehensively. However, no one should underestimate the complexities of the situation or believe that there will be an easy solution. After all, the Layfield Committee Report on local government finance in 1977 contained 494 pages and the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission Report in 1969 contained 396 pages.
If one looks at that mass of evidence and ideas, it can be seen why I believe that only after real and effective in depth consultation right across the board can any progress be made. It is not good enough that the Secretary of State should sit only with his civil servants to try to work out what is the best solution and perhaps read a few statements made by various bodies. If we act without sufficient consent, we shall fail again. It is no good talking about consultation documents or White and Green Papers if comments invited by Whitehall are, as past experience has shown, frequently ignored.
It is worth bearing in mind that even those who opposed originally the principle of the community charge were nevertheless prepared to try to make it work as well as possible. The local authority associations and others were time and again frustrated at every turn by Whitehall's adamant refusal to listen to anything said by anybody who knew about the subject as to the cost of collecting the tax or about the anomalies or hardships which would be created. As a result of that, the remedial action taken by the Secretary of State, albeit very welcome, comes too late to save the poll tax, certainly in anything like its present form.
There is no time in which to dwell at any length today on the various alternatives which have been
978
canvassed; for example, property tax based on capital values, which I have long favoured, or on floor area, which I consider could be no more than a factor in assessment, or perhaps there should be a combination of a property tax and a poll tax of up to a maximum of about £100, which has been derided already as two taxes in place of one. I believe that all those options deserve to be considered carefully and objectively. I reiterate only that we should go carefully lest we proceed from one disaster to another.
Finally, I should like to say something briefly about areas, functions and structure. I do not believe that Whitehall should ever again try to draw up a new national boundary map or arbitrarily re-allocate functions. I should like to see a more evolutionary process, avoiding dogmatic situations. Some changes certainly need to be made but they would be better made area by area, bearing in mind that the same considerations do not necessarily apply uniformly throughout the country.
In the process of making changes we must be careful not to create a fresh series of administrative problems such as the shuffling around of offices or finding that the council buildings are all in the wrong place. If three authorities are merged into one there are three chief executives: one takes the golden bowler; the senior one takes the top job; and the junior one takes the deputy job with a promise of being chief executive in the future and the salary is worked out according to population. There is a way of gaining support if you want it, but that is not necessarily the best way.
We should consider also the effect of changes on the quality of members. At every change which is made, some members leave local government altogether and others join the new authority and start all over again. We must have regard to the sense of individual interest in the local community. That is one reason that I have always had grave reservations about the uniform business rate, however that is calculated, because that draws businesses away from an interest which they should have in local affairs and administration.
We all speak personally on the matter of boundaries. I have my own views. I was born in Somerset and not Avon. Bath is in Somerset and not Avon. My loyalty is to Bath and Somerset and it never will be to Avon. I can equally understand why Humberside means little or nothing to electors who think in terms of Hull or Yorkshire. In that regard, I have a particular complaint to make about what has happened. A change was made in the Local Government Act 1985 to the Local Government Act 1972 which provided for a review. I regard it as absurd that the Boundary Commission is precluded from even considering the possibility of Hull becoming an all-purpose authority; in which case it might just as well not sit at all because that is the only option in which everybody is interested.
There is a strong case to be made for the unitary authority. The present structure blurs responsibility and accountability. While I favour an extension of the concept of the old county borough—the all-purpose authority—to many district councils, I would be reluctant to abolish all county councils.
Looking ahead we must remember that local authorities have been left reeling after the passing of more than 50 Acts of Parliament over the past 10 years which directly affect them. Against that background we must consider how we can reinvigorate local democracy and protect it against the increasingly over-mighty state. That is why there is some support for the concept of elected mayors. I can see merit in studying either the United States or the French systems, which vary in degrees of power and influence. If we adopted the French practice no doubt the Prime Minister would also be Mayor of Huntingdon.
However one adapted the American or French systems, an elected mayor would be a focal point of local pride, and with a sufficiently high profile to attract candidates who could have more than a local influence. I see them more as chairmen or leaders of the council than as executive administrators. That is the kind of change that could not possibly be imposed from the centre. There must be a degree of agreement, possibly giving local authorities some element of choice as to whether or not they would like to experiment along those lines.
Your Lordships may feel that I have raised as many doubts as I have suggested. That is because my instinct in these matters is to tread cautiously through the minefields, taking the local authority associations along with us in reforms which, if they are to mean anything, must last for more than one Parliament or generation.
I hope that I have thrown up some ideas for consideration, bearing in mind that we do not want to echo once again the famous words of Lord Melbourne. Whenever he was presented with a new idea he would say,
"By God, why can't they let it alone".
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with opponents like that, who needs friends? I am fond of pontificating about local government and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and his colleagues for giving us this opportunity. I am bound to say that I find it astonishing that a Government which have been in power for 12 years and have been responsible for the "hammer blows"—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon—which local government have suffered in recent years should consider it appropriate or even defensible to use Conservative Back Bench time to debate a subject of this kind. One of the objectives may be to tempt my noble friends and myself to write the relevant parts of the Conservative election manifesto, which the Conservative Party are incapable of writing at the moment. I shall resist that temptation. If the Government and noble Lords opposite wish to discover what our views are they are welcome to read our documents on fair rates and equality commission. I wish them joy of that; it is much more clearly thought out and well written than any of the documents appearing from the other side.
I repeat that it is astonishing that a government party should consider it appropriate after 12 years in office to seek a fundamental review of the structure
980
and finance in local government. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, almost used the word "functions" instead of "structure and finance". I found that interesting. I wonder whether he meant it. I shall be returning to the matter later.
We have had 12 years in which we have not only experienced rate capping and then the poll tax—apparently that phrase is now respectable throughout the House—but also, as we have been told, poll tax capping. There has been the whole debacle of compulsory competitive tendering and the abolition of city government and metropolitan counties. We have seen the ring-fencing of housing revenue accounts so that local people are not able to decide what their housing costs and rents should be. As we were reminded, we have the provision that when council houses are sold the money cannot be used by local authorities for capital purposes, including more housing. We have seen the various experiments with education. Some of them are excellent, like the local management of schools, and some far less excellent, like the grant-maintained schools which predictably are adopted only when schools are threatened with closure by local authorities who want to rationalise their educational provision.
The 12 years' experience of this Government could be said to have made a review necessary, but a review by a Conservative government almost certainly a failure. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, quite rightly said that the tendency towards centralisation has gone very far and should now be reversed. I am tempted to say, cynically, in regard to my own side and my own views, that those in government are nearly always centralisers; they cannot bear to allow anything out of their hands. Those in opposition are nearly always decentralisers because they want a small share of the power if they can possibly get it. I am afraid that has been as true of Labour governments as Conservative governments throughout the ages. However, the principle is sound.
In looking at the structure and finance of local government we should always consider the extent to which the methods, procedures and institutions we adopt tend towards centralised power. If one looks at local government in this century, its history under all administrations almost entirely has meant the taking away of executive functions from the real authority of local government.
We were reminded recently by the borough housing officer of Rochdale that in 1906 the functions of the Rochdale Borough Council included police, the manufacture and distribution of gas, water supply, drainage, highways, libraries, art gallery, museum, parks, running the tramways and education. He said, quite rightly, that only one executive function, one business, now rests in the hands of Rochdale Borough Council; that is, the business of public sector and municipal housing. Even that is being largely taken away. It is the declared intention of this Government to take away such functions from local authorities.
In this century we have gone a long way towards encouraging centralisation and diminishing local accountability and democracy. When we examine the

981
structure of local government it is astonishing to see how much we differ from most other developed countries in the world. The county of Kent is as large in population terms as the 17 smallest individual states of the United States of America. The average size of counties and even of districts in this country is larger than any comparable first or second tier local authorities in any country in Europe.
Denmark practises, as do most Scandinavian countries, a commune system. Local authorities with an average population—not a minimum population —of 17,000 people in effect run all local authority services. I take a more extreme example. The state of Liechtenstein has a population of approximately 30,000. It not only runs all its own services where it needs to, but contracts out where it finds it convenient to do so. For example, for higher education it contracts out to Germany and Austria; for customs union it contracts out to Switzerland, and so on. Even with a population of 30,000 people there is a separate town council for the town of Vaduz which has a population of 15,000. There are separate local authorities for various communities in the country areas of Liechtenstein. If that country can do it why cannot we? In other words, why cannot we adopt the principle that local government will be more effective the closer it is to the people it serves?
In this country we have a distortion of local government which has been brought about over a number of years mainly by Conservative governments. That was based on the idea that the minimum size of a local authority should be determined by administrative efficiency rather than by democracy or accountability. If anything proves that that is wrong it is the fact that voting turnouts in local elections in this country are lower than in almost any of our European counterparts and still diminishing as local authorities continue to get larger.
Whatever detailed series of prescriptions we adopt, surely we should be adopting the principle that we look at what local government has to do, then find out the best way to do it rather than to impose a pattern. When I think about the structure of local government I am always strongly attracted to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, that there is no reason why there should be a uniform prescription for local government boundaries and responsibilities throughout the country. There is no good reason why one should have the same network of counties. Counties such as Cornwall and Devon are perfectly real. But Hereford and Worcester is not a perfectly real county. Humberside is not a perfectly real county and neither is Avon. In our desire for conformity and uniformity we have imposed absurd and expensive patterns of local government organisation and matters are getting worse.
I propose to the House that it should not seek any other uniform or unilateral prescription for local government boundaries. If that is to be the alternative I would rather leave matters well alone than to enter into wholesale and uniform reorganisation.
Another principle that we should consider is finance. We should look at the role of local government expenditure in relation to the whole of
982
public spending. A White Paper published in 1988 rightly said that local government expenditure should not be lumped in with central government expenditure in the total public spend. I go further and argue that theological views about what public expenditure is should not in any case apply to local government. It was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as a member of a Labour government, who first gave expression to the absurd view that somehow there is a reduction in democracy and efficiency if public spending reaches, I think he said, 40 per cent.
There is no such magic figure. Like private expenditure, public expenditure can be investment or current spending. The economic effects of it depend on whether it is investment which may be extravagant or otherwise or whether it is current spending. Whether the spending is private or public is almost irrelevant to the economic argument. But local authority expenditure does not add to public borrowing unless it is genuine investment and neither does it affect the money supply. I suggest that the kinds of controls which are involved in the poll tax capping procedures which we have for 1991–92 are economically as well as democratically unsound.
The problem identified by the Secretary of State and his predecessors is that the level of the poll tax is too high. People hate it. There are very good reasons why the poll tax is too high. It is too high because it is now expected to contribute 28 per cent. of local authority spending whereas in 1979, 1980 and 1981 rates contributed only 17 per cent. to local authority expenditure. At the same time, but not quite in inverse proportion because of business rates, government grants to local authorities 11 years ago accounted for 60 per cent. of local authority spending. They now account for only 42 per cent. That is why the poll tax is too high. It is not because local authorities are being extravagant but because the poll tax payers are being asked to pay more of the share of local authority spending.
It is no good anyone saying that what is called community charge relief is a welcome change. After all, that is only a transitional provision. It tries to minimise the damage done by the poll tax by relating it to those wicked old things, the rates. It is not exactly a reform which would be welcomed by those noble Lords who valiantly supported the poll tax Bill when it was before your Lordships' House three years ago.
I am going to keep a very careful account of the speeches made from the Government Benches this afternoon. I shall compare them with what noble Lords did and said and how they voted when that Bill was going through this House in 1988. I suspect that it will be left to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to defend the poll tax in the full violence of its blossoming. I do not think that there will be many other noble Lords on the Conservative Benches taking that position now.
If we want to look at local authority expenditure in a rational way we should not be taking a single prescriptive view for the whole of it. We should be doing what the Joseph Rowntree Trust is recommending that we do; namely, look at different elements of local authority expenditure and decide which of them

983
are inevitably caused by national policy. We could leave much of that to local judgment. We should make local people pay for those provisions which are essential but about which there are genuine differences of opinion as to the level of provision. In some cases we should be making the users of particular services pay for them. It is not an alternative prescription which is required, but a commonsense view of what local authority finance should be about.
Beyond all this talk about the structure and finance of local government comes the question of what local government is for. If this were a real review it is the functions of local government that should be considered. I suggest to noble Lords that local government is for a plural view of society. It is in favour of the view that there is not only one source of wisdom, whether in Whitehall, Marsham Street or even the Palace of Westminster. The view that has been taken, particularly by this Government over the past 12 years, has been that local people are incapable of making up their minds about the issues that affect them.
There has been a smokescreen of false economic argument about that view, but that is fundamentally the view that has been taken. It has been taken because certain Members of certain Cabinets over the past 12 years have bitterly resented the concept of an alternative source of political authority. I cannot promise that under a Labour government those centralist urges will not reassert themselves. I am sure that some of my noble, honourable and right honourable friends will wish to return to central government control of local authorities. There will be many of us who will continue to bitterly oppose them.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, we are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, for giving us this opportunity to debate the need to review the structure and finance of local government. He has, I know, long been a doughty supporter of local government. I have to say that I agreed with almost every word of his speech. I wish now that I could just sit down and say, "Hear, hear". However, I may say that his short-term palliatives, which I do not intend to cover, were along the right lines. I think that what he suggested should happen immediately was correct.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who at least admitted to centralist tendencies were he to become a Minister in the Department of the Environment following a change of government. He has considerable knowledge, but he did not tell us too much of what Labour might do if they were returned at the next election and had this problem on their hands. We have not heard what they would do about the poll tax, although we have some idea from other sources.
On these Benches we have consistently opposed the ever-increasing centralising of power in the UK. We used to think that in that aim we had at least a modicum of Tory support. When Conservatives were in opposition, I appeared on a number of occasions at
984
meetings with the ACC and others. I always heard words to the effect that we should leave it to local authorities to decide. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, it is very different when one happens to be in office. I hope very much that if we were ever to have a role in office we would stick to our guns and make sure that we did not want to take over everything from local government.
It is a fact that over the past 12 years we have seen a virtual castration of local government decision-making, particularly in England and Wales. I think I am right in saying that in Scotland water is still a local authority function. Local communities should have the right to local self-government with a capacity for local choice and local voice. I agree with every word on the brief of the AMA. There is now a desperate need to revive the morale of local government officers, most of whom are exceptionally capable and with a great tradition of service. They are highly trained people. But their efforts have too often been derided in recent years. We must also attract back councillors of experience and knowledge who have much to offer their local communities but who have disappeared in droves since the mid-seventies, possibly following local government reorganisation. However, I do not think that is the real reason. On the whole, they are just frustrated by Whitehall diktat. They may be elected for four years but find they are unable to achieve anything so off they come. They have also been totally disillusioned by the excessive domination of party politics. As long ago as the early 1880s Mr. Gladstone said:
"If we can make arrangements under which Ireland, Scotland, Wales, portions of England, can deal with questions of local and special interest to themselves more efficiently than Parliament now can, that, I say, will be the attainment of great national good".
Surely those words could never be more true than they are today, more than 100 years later.
The last time the country took a serious look at local government reform was between 1966 and 1969 when the then Labour Government set up the Redcliffe-Maud Committee. They were also responsible for initiating the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which reported in 1973 and is usually referred to as the Kilbrandon Commission. It therefore makes sense to look back and see what they recommended. Redcliffe-Maud is quite clear. England, excluding London, should be divided into 61 new local government areas, each covering town and county. In 58 of them a single purpose authority should be responsible for all services. In the special circumstances of the three metropolitan areas around Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, they suggested that responsibility should be divided in each case between a metropolitan authority, whose key function would be planning, transportation and major developments, and a number of metropolitan district authorities, whose key functions would be education, personal social services, health and housing. They also called for the establishment of eight provincial councils to handle the broader planning and economic

985
issues. Our party long ago published a document called Power to the Provinces in which we called for the setting up of 12 regional bodies.
Redcliffe-Maud also reiterated its strong support for elected local councils—that is, parish and town councils, which are now often called community councils. This is something which we on these Benches want to see further extended. There has been a move in that direction. It is a good move and we want to see it taken still further. Kilbrandon called for the establishment of Scottish and Welsh assemblies, with legislative powers and elected by the single transferable vote PR system. For England Kilbrandon suggested regional councils co-ordinating various planning and transport matters which should be partly indirectly elected and partly appointed. We want to see such policies implemented, not necessarily in the particular form which I have read out but following that line, and soon. Developments in Scotland and Wales and regionalism in England should come before any change in the structure of lower tiers of local government.
Despite the fact that men and women of great experience sat for several years taking evidence from a vast number of bodies, their majority views were almost totally ignored by the then Government. What a tragedy, and what an expensive one too! We have consistently called them multi-purpose authorities whose boundaries match local needs and circumstances. It does now seem that there is much wider acceptance of this principle. Uniformity was thrust upon us in 1973. It is perceptibly not necessary. What fits best with the local community should be the rule.
I speak with considerable feeling about the matter because we fought for our independence in the Isle of Wight. It was suggested by Redcliffe-Maud that we should go into Hampshire. I think the Labour Party wanted to put us into some great metropolitan authority with Portsmouth and Southampton. The then county council, which was independent but basically Tory, put forward a paper which said that there should be one all-purpose authority. I totally agreed with that and have fought for it ever since. I have been to the Boundary Commission. I have been to every appropriate Secretary of State. We ran a poll which produced a majority in favour of the proposal; but it still has not happened. We still have the ridiculous situation of a county and two districts. The county is the biggest authority by far. The districts have budgets of about £4 million each or less than that. The system is totally daft and has divided the Isle of Wight. But I agree totally with the point about Hereford. Hereford, near where I now live, is a proud county. It produces a breed of good cattle. Why on earth was it put in with Worcester? I will never understand how Peter Walker got away with that, as Member of Parliament for Worcester.
On these Benches we welcome the invitation from the present Secretary of State for the Environment to discuss with him what we think should now be done, not only about finance but administrative structures. If we are to set about a further upheaval, it is—I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rippon—of the utmost importance that what is ultimately
986
proposed should have a wide cross-party measure of acceptance. We just cannot afford to proceed along dogmatic party lines as we have in the past.
The latest example is the poll tax. It has to be abolished. It is grossly unfair and desperately expensive to operate. I have given this example before. I live in Shropshire but my postal address is Powys. No one can accuse Powys or Shropshire of being overspending authorities. However, if one happens to be on the wrong side of the Teme one's poll tax is way over £300. In Wales, it is £190. It is grossly unfair.
One of the worst outrages is the way the standard charge of twice times the poll tax rate has been implemented by most local councils. I argued about this with the local authority. My son was in Australia. He came back four months into the current financial year to face a bill of more than £600. I had that reduced to £260 but the borough had the choice to go between, as I understood it when we were discussing the Bill, 50 per cent. of the amount or double the amount: "Oh no, I was told that's not possible. We decided at the beginning of the financial year that, if it's double, that has to be and we can't make any amendment to that." I worry about what is going to happen to our troops in the Gulf. I hope that they will not come up against that. It is grossly unfair.
I also think that most shopkeepers now deeply resent the uniform business rate. I know that I do; I am a shopkeeper. I would much rather deal directly with the local authority than wait years to get back my money for overpaid rates! I have appealed against mine in all circumstances and I still have not had a response from the valuation officer. I have to pay what I think is a grossly excessive business rate. We do not get that money back. I wonder whether I shall get some interest on it when I win; I hope that I do.
As a party we stick by the local income tax as the main source of finance for local government, backed up by a land tax based on site values, which we think should cover industry, commerce and development land. As concerns a LIT, we can claim the support of the Layfield Committee which reported in May 1976. Once again experienced people gave of their considerable time, consulted widely, and then stated:
"There is a strongly held view amongst us that the only way to sustain a vital local democracy is to enlarge the share of local taxation in total local revenue and thereby make councillors more directly accountable to local electorates for their expenditure and taxation decisions. On balance we consider that the administrative cost involved in introducing a LIT for this purpose would be justified".
Layfield reported in 1976. It is now 1991. The Inland Revenue has moved on with computerisation. It may not be entirely computerised yet but it will happen in the next few years and LIT should therefore be considerably cheaper to implement.
One of the greatest advocates of LIT was a friend of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, the late Graham Page, who was a Minister with responsibility for local government. He introduced in another place at least two Private Member's Bills on the subject. I ask noble Lords who still have doubts about LIT to read the reports of the debates on those Bills. We totally oppose the idea of taking responsibility for certain services away from local government. Education, fire

987
and the police are those most often mentioned. The opting out of schools will prove a tragic error. Do Ministers really want literally thousands of head-teachers and chairmen of management committees constantly lobbying them, by letter and in person, for extra resources? There are around 28,000 schools and colleges of further education in Britain. If they all opt out they will all look to the centre for their money. They will pour down here at certain times of the year. In most parts of the country counties run our education services well. We ran ours well. Do not destroy overnight what until comparatively recently worked to our children's best advantage.
We all generally welcome the changes brought about by the 1988 Act in terms of the way we set up the management of schools. Let it settle down before making any ill-considered reforms. While there may be a case for regionalising some of our police force responsibilities, to put them under direct control of the Home Secretary would surely be a grave mistake. Experience with the Metropolitan Police should teach us that lesson.
Layfield recommended a second source of finance based on capital values of properties, grouped in bands and brought down to rateable levels by the use of a common divisor. I cannot see such a scheme working in current circumstances where property values are all over the place. We read in the papers that houses which had a price tag of £600,000 two years ago are now on offer at £250,000 and they are still not selling. A flat in Docklands, sold for £110,000 in 1987, has recently changed hands again for £47,000. The valuation officer would be changing the list every week if we went down that path. Where I do agree with the Labour party is on the need for a return to the old valuation lists for an interim period, as that is the only base available to local authorities on which to levy their rates if the poll tax is to go, as surely go it must. I have for a long time been convinced that another essential reform is to introduce the directly elected mayoral system into England. I could really have done things in the Isle of Wight if I had been the mayor with power. I want to give real pride and power back to our cities and perhaps to other all-purpose authorities; but that may be going a little too far. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. One has to be a little careful about how one sets about it. Certainly I think London would benefit enormously; so too surely would Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol and many other major cities.
In this I have the support of the Secretary of State himself and of Mr. Tony Banks of the Labour Party, who recently introduced a Private Members' Bill on the subject. Even Dame Shirley Porter thinks that there should be a Minister for London. I just hope to God that she is not in for the job herself. It should perhaps be left to the elected councillors themselves to decide what form it might take. Not all mayors in the United States, for instance, have exactly the same powers. I found that out when I was there. The mayor of New York has considerable powers; the mayor of Dallas does not have very many at all. But what is essential is that all local government elections should
988
be run on the single transferable vote system of PR. This, I appreciate, will not be easy to sell to the Conservative Party, though I have higher hopes of Labour. But surely all right-minded people who are concerned about the future of our democratic systems must be appalled at the abuses of patronage in appointments to public bodies that have occurred in recent years—the appointment of a Liberal or two might not come amiss sometimes—and some of the thuggish tactics perpetrated in our council chambers are an absolute disgrace.
In 1979 my electorate felt very sorry for me. They said that they could not vote for me because of this terrible thing, the Lib-Lab Pact, but that they would vote for my colleague in the local elections. Suddenly we took control of Medena borough council. I thought that I would lose my seat but all my people were elected. Fortunately I managed to survive in the end. The councillors who unexpectedly came to office came to me and said, "What should we do?" I said, "First, don't kick out the mayor-elect. Let him go on and have his year of office. Secondly, don't take the chairmanship of every single committee. Let the Tories and the Independents have one or two chairmanships". They actually took my advice, poor fools; but they suffered in the end for so doing. That is how it is played.
If we had had PR, then those things would not have happened. It is the party line that hardens attitudes. When I became leader of the county council in 1981, I tried to persuade colleagues to take a similar view; but then it was far too late. I say to the House that, for the health of our nation, proportional representation is long overdue: we can make a good start with the local authorities.
3.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, this is a timely debate, especially in view of what has been termed the "Heseltine review"—the review of the community charge or poll tax. We are all profoundly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for giving us an opportunity to debate this matter. I checked the reference to him in Dod's. In the midst of his very distinguished career, much of it related to local government, I could not help noticing that at one point he was the admiral of the Manx herring fleet. I can only hope that his fishing this afternoon will bring a good catch among those who are responsible for policy, whether on this side of the House or possibly in a future government.
The diocese of Manchester has within it, in whole or in part, nine metropolitan boroughs, including the ring of Lancashire towns: Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Ashton as well as Manchester and Salford. The Churches have always valued their relations with local government, especially in education for there are many church schools. Every year, the mayors—affectionately known as the chain gang—and the chief executives come to meet the leaders of the Churches in the Greater Manchester county area. Let no one say that the Greater Manchester county has been abolished. Although the county council has been abolished, the county still exists. We also have a Lord

989
Lieutenant. They come usually to my house and sometimes to the house of my opposite number, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford. We try to affirm the value of local government for all the people living in the area, and the importance of good men and women giving their time and energies to the work of the local council. We try to emphasise that this a proper sphere for the working of God's spirit in service to our fellow men and women.
Whatever structure of local government one has or whatever the financial arrangements, what really matters is positive encouragement and support from central government and a good working relationship between central and local government. This has been sadly lacking in recent years. During the years that I have lived in the area there has been a steady campaign of denigration of local government by central government and also many, many actions of central government deliberately designed to bring pressure on local authorities.
It should not be supposed for one moment that I am saying that all the faults in such tensions are always on one side. They are not. Of course town halls can do silly things; they can on occasion be extravagant; political considerations can become dominant. There is bureaucracy and some inefficiency, as is the case in all major organisations. But having said that, I believe that the main responsibility for a sad deterioration in relationships over the years has rested squarely on the shoulders of central Government.
It should not be supposed for one moment that it is all like that. There are obviously some splendid examples of good, constructive co-operation in these areas for the service of the people living there. I spent an afternoon this week viewing a very exciting project in the Ordsall triangle in Salford, which encompasses "Coronation Street" and so on. That is where the Rover's Return is situated. In a new neighbourhood centre, financed partly by urban development funds, by the "Save a City" project and, indeed, by central government grants of various kinds, people are working together in the field of housing, community work, social services and planning. It is very encouraging to see such work taking place. That is how it ought to be.
There are signs of a new wind of change coming from central government as regards their attitude towards local government. I can only hope and pray that that wind will blow even more strongly. However, before it can do so, it must blow away some of the suspicions and bitterness of past years. It is vital that government and leaders of all political parties realise just how bad things have become. Morale is very low in local government at present, and it is already becoming increasingly hard to persuade good people to give of their time to local council work or indeed to apply for jobs in local government. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an illustration of what I mean. A former chief executive in our area, admittedly a few years ago, said to me, "I came into local government out of a spirit of service. I now find myself and my officers constantly denigrated by central government
990
who call us a bureaucracy and give us no co-operation in what we try to do for the needy people in our area".
That pressure has been put on local authorities which at present have some of the greatest social problems in our country—problems that have been created by the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution which, as I am sure many of us know, created much of the wealth of modern Britain. Local government must be affirmed and there must be co-operation instead of constant damaging vendettas. Incidentally, some years ago I heard a courageous speech by the president of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the presence of the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, who was the honoured guest on that occasion. The president, a man of no political party, pointed out that commerce and industry had managed to work well and co-operate a good deal better with Left-Wing dominated town halls than had ever been the case with central government. Let us hope that the wind of change is indeed blowing.
It is true that local government expenditure in real terms rose during the 1980s. I am sure that that point will be made later in the debate. But, as has already been said, the autonomy of local government has been steadily whittled away. In that respect I would point, as an example, to the urban development corporations. Good and exciting things are happening in the centres of some of our cities; yet there has been a tendency to by-pass local government, the co-operation of which is needed.
The biggest disgrace of recent years has been the poor investment in housing with the reduction in central government subsidy—the life-blood for local councils in this vital field—cut to a fraction of what it was in the 1970s. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was especially strong in his views on education. His remarks have perhaps saved me from talking at great length on the matter. I believe that the potentially gravest damage to the structure of education in this country is the policy of grant-maintained schools. Encouragement is increasingly being given to more and more schools to opt out. What is expected from this policy? How is it possible for local education authorities to plan effectively for school places when schools are being encouraged to opt out in that way? Schemes for reorganisation have already been shelved; but surplus places have not been removed and that is wasteful and expensive. Surely part of the object of the Government's declared policy is to bring a rationality of expenditure into our education services.
How can the LEAs plan when the Secretary of State announces that he wants many more schools to vote to opt out of local authority control? Moreover, they are being bribed—and I use that word advisedly—to do so. I can fully understand schools threatened with closure choosing this option. The first secondary school in the country to opt out was in my diocese, and it was threatened with closure. One can appreciate the reasons for taking that option. But when stronger schools which are under no threat of closure are given every inducement to opt out, what does that say to

991
people who are trying to plan the education system in this country? In regard to capital allocations for schools, the average for opted-out schools is, as I understand it, £250,000 at present as opposed to the average of £17,000 for Manchester schools. Such schools are also receiving a top-up from LEA funds, at the expense of others. Is that a fair policy?
There should, of course, be no fundamentalism in the structures of local government. None of us need dig our toes in about any change in that respect. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, pointed out so effectively, we can plead that where changes are made they must be given time to settle down. I believe that that was one of the tragedies of the abolition of the metropolitan counties. The reform had not been given time to settle down. One of the objects of that reform—certainly in the Greater Manchester area —was that it brought together areas of deprivation along with more affluent areas, especially on the Cheshire plain. That was one way of helping to reallocate resources which is now no longer available. In any review in the future, I hope that that very important social aspect will be given prime consideration.
I shall not say a great deal about the issues concerning the financing of local government. I listened with great interest to what has been said and especially to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. He said that expenditure determined nationally should be paid for nationally. He drew a very important distinction between grants and administration. I believe that that should always be borne in mind. In my view, the areas of responsibility for which local government is now accountable should remain and should not be transferred to central government by way of a process of centralisation which has been taking place.
Perhaps I may quote from a very interesting book which I found in the Library of your Lordships' House. It is entitled Recent Trends in Central-Local Government Relations, from the Policy Studies Institute for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and written by Peter John. After examining what has happened in relations between central and local government in recent years, he said:
"Increasing the role of the consumer"—
for example, decentralising schools—
"may increase the role of the professional … decentralising powers to schools may increase the influence of teachers, particularly head teachers, rather than parents.
On balance there has been an overall trend towards centralisation, particularly in some services such as education. It is not evident that the reforms will extend local choice, although local authorities will adapt to their new roles. The government's attempts to smooth over relationships have been short term only and have been superseded by new controversies, particularly over the community charge".
If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who is the next speaker, seeks to defend the community charge or poll tax, I hope that he will remember that that charge has been condemned by every major Church body in this country because of its inequity.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the last remark of the right reverend Prelate is perhaps a trifle double-edged. I say that because, in financial and economic matters, condemnation by Church bodies may well seem to impartial opinion to be a very considerable endorsement of the policies. Although the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues speak with unquestioned authority on theological matters, I hope that he will accept that many of us do not feel that that authority extends to financial and economic policy. The fact that bodies which in this respect are wholly amateur have condemned a policy would not, I think, suggest to many people that there is necessarily anything very much the matter with it.
We are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Rippon for introducing the debate. As he did so, I had an agreeable recollection of him, aged 26 or 27, as his worship the Mayor of Surbiton accompanied by a charming mayoress aged 22 or 23. My noble friend has experience of local government going back much further than his apparent youthfulness of appearance would indicate to your Lordships. My noble friend's extremely interesting and stimulating speech was perhaps, to a considerable extent, due to that experience. Whether or not one agrees with what he said, one realises that he knows what he is talking about when he talks about local authority matters and that that knowledge is based on great experience.
A debate on the structure and finance of local government falls into two parts. One part is easy and concerns pointing out what is wrong with it. The other part is extremely difficult and concerns suggesting sensible changes. In that sense, we divide the debate into two parts.
There are many serious defects in the current structure. When it is suggested that all those defects are apparently due to the community charge, I am bound to say that I must disagree with those who make that suggestion. After all, the essence of the community charge, and the principle behind it, is that if one has an electorate voting on public expenditure it is a somewhat unstable situation if the majority of that electorate is not financially involved in contributing to that expenditure and happily knows that the whole of that additional expenditure for which it is voting will fall on a minority only. I cannot believe that that makes good sense or good economic sense. It is because the community charge was an attempt to redress that balance: to bring together, at least to a certain extent, financial responsibility with responsibility for the determination of the policies of local authorities, that I have always believed that that approach was the right one. Of course it has run into difficulties as has every previous attempt to reform local government. That is one of the subjects that your Lordships are discussing, and it may well be that there are variations to the original proposals which could make an improvement.
I have always believed that it was a mistake to introduce the community charge so late in a Parliament. If your Lordships looked at what

993
happened in Scotland where it was introduced a year earlier and at the comparative ease with which it went into the Scottish system—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is no use noble Lords saying, "Oh". Until there was a fuss in England, the practical, canny Scots accepted it and were working it efficiently. It was because the English scheme, for some reason which I have never understood, was introduced so late in the Parliament that a good many of the problems arose. There is no reason to be panicked by that. Adjustments will undoubtedly have to be made to the community charge and to the whole structure of local government, but to accept, as one or two noble Lords appear to have done, that there is something inherently wrong in principle with the community charge is not a view that I share.
I should like to touch upon the whole subject of the structure of local government which, whatever system one has —whether it is the community charge or otherwise—must be paid for by ratepayer and taxpayer. Recent experience is full of warnings of the danger; of changing. Changes made over the years have almost always been wrong. Let us take the new counties. Reference was made by my noble friend Lord Rippon to the county of Avon which has never been popular. Your Lordships may have heard the delightful observation of that great man the late Duke of Beaufort who said that it was rather sad to have to end his days in a four-letter county.
Humberside has equally been a disaster. Most of your Lordships who follow politics will be aware of how Humberside happened; it happened because a bridge had to be paid for; and a bridge had to be paid for because there was a by-election in the days of the Labour Government which it was thought might be helpfully affected by the building of a bridge. At any rate the county is a disaster. I hope that it will be dismembered. There are other authorities which have gained no acceptance. Your Lordships will have to consider whether a great many of the recent changes are changes which should be continued.
I should like to refer to the problem which has not yet been mentioned—it is a serious one in our modern local government—and relates to the two-tier system. We had it in London—no one knows that better than the not le Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—until the Greater London Council was abolished. It was abolished although it did a good job when my noble friend presided over it. When it fell into the hands of the Labour Party—although not into the hands of the noble Lord who won an election for it—it proved to be a disaster and an encumbrance. We now have a single-tier system in London which on the whole has proved highly beneficial. I hope that it is an example that will be followed.
There are heaps of similar complications. There is the extraordinary fact that the Surrey County Council —one of the richest local authorities—has its headquarters in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames which is of course part of the Greater
994
London area and is outside the county of Surrey. I do not know whether it was made to pay a business rate; I rather hope that it was. It is an astonishing system when a local authority can have its headquarters in the area of another authority.
On the two-tier system as a whole, I can best help your Lordships by recounting the situation where I have my home in Hampshire. My home in Hampshire is situated seven miles from Newbury, but because we are in Hampshire and Newbury is in Berkshire we cannot be allied with it. We are now placed under the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. What or where. Deane is, I have not yet discovered. There may be some of your Lordships who have knowledge of that recondite subject.
Basingstoke is 18 miles away from us and is not in the slightest degree interested in us except of course as a source of revenue. It is an absurd alliance. Basingstoke's ignorance of the facts of the area where I happen to live was brought home to me vividly a little time ago when it sent a senior official to warn me that I should take greater care of a water pump of considerable antiquity which needed to be treated as a scheduled building. However, the authority had failed to ascertain, before sending an official on an expensive visit, that the water pump was not on my land. It could perfectly easily have been found out by telephone. On the other hand, because of the authority's ignorance of the whole area it solemnly incurred this expense to no useful purpose.
In addition to Basingstoke, 18 miles in one direction, there looms the Hampshire County Council, 20 miles in the other. If one considers the demands either for rates in the past, or now the community charge, one sees that the greater part of the charge is imposed by Basingstoke on behalf of Hampshire. I cannot believe that that is a good system. I cannot believe that an authority which feels that the money it spends is rightly spent—as I am sure Hampshire believes, rightly or wrongly—should be free of the obligation to levy the charge for itself. But to be able simply to impose it on another local authority which has no responsibility over it at all and make that other local authority impose it on the private citizen seems to me a cumbrous and tiresome system.
Moreover, that means that covering the same area are two large bureaucracies; in my experience corresponding in a rather leisurely way with each other at public expense and duplicating to a considerable degree each other's functions. Therefore, having two separate authorities, both remote from the area with which they are supposed to be concerned, one dealing with the other at considerable length, seems to me an extravagant and inefficient system.
I give another example of what I have tried to explain about the mistake of recent changes. Before they came about there was a rural district council—the Kingsclere and Whitchurch Rural District Council. It was in the area, which it knew, and it operated on a modest but efficient and economic scale. It was a great pity that some years ago the Government of the day

995
abolished it and put the area in the combined hands of Basingstoke and Winchester. I quote that example because it can be duplicated all over the country.
There is a large number of two-tier authorities. There may well be an argument for two tiers in certain cases and I should not dare to dogmatise and say that it could never be right. However, I suggest that in many cases it must be wrong. In the case of rural Hampshire, it certainly is wrong. I hope that when my noble friend replies she will indicate that the Government are examining the two-tier system. The Government will be encouraged by the improvement which they themselves have brought about in London. The freeing of the London boroughs from the overall interference and expense of the Greater London Council has been a great success. However, it is one which those of us who live in other areas would like to see repeated to our own benefit.
The structure of local government requires review. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred with great vigour to public expenditure in this context and attacked the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, on the subject. It is no part or duty of mine to defend the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, with whom I often disagree, but it seemed to me that to attack him on the ground that he had wished for some restraint in public expenditure was rather odd; not least given that when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was Chancellor of the Exchequer, public expenditure was high. To attack him on the ground that he apparently did not believe in high expenditure was wholly unjustified.
Whatever system of local government we have, there will be considerable expenditure. There will be the problem of maintaining the balance; and it is not as easy as the noble Lord opposite suggested to brush aside the consequences of high expenditure beyond a certain point. The exact point is, I agree, a matter of critical judgment, but high expenditure beyond a certain point diminishes enterprise, discourages business from entering an area and diminishes the whole incentive to work, earn and create wealth. Therefore, however good, however conscientious, however sincere and however full of nice ideas the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester thinks local government may be, it will be ineffective if it promotes rates of expenditure which bring economic and financial depression to the area.
That is no mere abstract fear, it is happening today in Liverpool. Once a great city of economic and financial success, a major port on the North Atlantic, Liverpool is now an area of high unemployment. Some of its districts have 20 per cent. unemployment, great poverty and great distress, largely because the city has been governed over the years by local authorities that have not only spent public money recklessly but have, in the process, discouraged business and enterprise from starting there. That is why so many people in the great city of Liverpool now suffer hardship which is all the more bitter because it is unnecessary.
We are therefore engaged in an extremely important subject. If we are to get local authority organisation in this country right, it will need a
996
considerable effort over a long period of time. I share the feeling of my noble friend Lord Rippon that it would be silly to rush into changes. The matter needs full, detailed, and careful consideration and we must make sure that we get it right. In doing so, I am sure that we realise that we shall be performing a major service to our fellow countrymen, particularly to the citizens of the local authorities concerned. I shall be interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister what ideas the Government have on the subject. I very much hope that they will not include speedy action but will include widespread consultation, careful thought, and prolonged study.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, believes that the poll tax in Scotland has settled down and works satisfactorily, he had better tell that to the Scots. He may receive a somewhat dusty answer. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, on introducing the debate and on his speech. As I listened to him the old Salvation Army refrain kept going through my mind: "Come and join us, come and join us". I am sure that he will reflect on it.
Undoubtedly, the next time there is a reorganisation of local government, and as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, there is a need to have a reorganisation that will stick, be long-lasting and not under severe strain after a mere 20 years. We should remember that the 1888 reorganisation lasted 84 years. The next reorganisation must last a lot longer than 20 years.
I believe that the present situation arises to a large extent because the then Secretary of State, Mr. Walker, did not accept the advice of the Royal Commission under Lord Redcliffe-Maud. In particular, I believe that it was an act of wilful vandalism to destroy the county boroughs which had contributed so much to the stability, liveliness and inventiveness of local government. It was also a mistake to reform the system of local government without at the same time reforming its finances to give it a firm and dynamic base of its own resources. That alone can give local government the democratic independence that it needs if it is properly to perform its functions and gain the support and respect of people.
I had the honour to serve on the sub-committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations that was concerned with the reorganisation of local government. That sub-committee prepared evidence for the Royal Commission. The proposals that were made by that sub-committee were apposite. In my view they still constitute the best blueprint for stable, effective and democratic local government, provided that a secure, independent and popularly acceptable system of finance can also be agreed.
The Association of Municipal Corporations was in favour of most-purpose authorities ranging in population size from 100,000 to 1 million. The association said that size should not define the powers of local government. I believe that is still true. Other noble Lords have mentioned that point. The

997
association also proposed that there should be provincial councils responsible for strategic planning and wider services.
In my view local government needs to be of a size and form which meets the needs of the locality and the people who are to be administered. There is no optimum size for the administration of services. That applies even to education. In its submission to the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission, the Department of Education insisted that a population base of 500,000 people was necessary to provide a viable education service. That was a nonsense then and it remains a nonsense now. The Government no longer believe that to be the case. They have recently implemented proposals for the decentralised management of schools. Those proposals suggest that schools should manage themselves and be removed from the control of local authorities.
For 18 years I served as a member of the Reading Country Borough Council. I was the leader of that council for a significant period. My experience has been gained with an all-purpose authority. I found that experience rewarding and instructive. Reading was one of the smaller county boroughs with a population of 125,000 people. It was a nice, tightly-knit unit of people. Many people knew each other and the people of the area certainly knew who their councillors were. They knew where to go if they had any complaints about their services. The Reading County Borough Council ran a superb education service with a population base of 125,000. The council was a pioneer in many areas of education, including the teaching of deaf children. People who had deaf children used to move to Reading to take advantage of the pioneering work that the Reading education committee undertook in relation to the teaching of deaf children.
I am sorry that I, too, must refer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Reading County Borough Council ran its own efficient police force under the Watch Committee until the noble Lord—he was then the Home Secretary—amalgamated that police force with those of Oxford, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire into the Thames Valley Police Authority. There used to be virtually no crime in Reading. The reason was that policemen were on the beat rather than in Panda cars. The police came under the day-to-day supervision—I hope I may put it like that—of a chief constable who was responsible to the Watch Committee of the county borough. There is no substitute for the police feeling that they are part of the area they police. There is no substitute either for the people in an area knowing and trusting their policemen. I fear that we shall never go back to that position, but our system was a very good one and it certainly worked.
Reading County Borough Council administered housing, social services and a children's department and was therefore able to deal with family problems as a whole rather than in a piecemeal fashion. Although we were one of the smaller county boroughs, we were
998
the second largest mortgage-lending council in Britain. We helped thousands of people to own their own homes.
The great beauty of an all-purpose authority was that people knew where to go for their services. They knew that the town hall was a short bus ride away. They knew where to go for redress because there was a single authority in charge. They also knew who to blame when things went wrong and who to kick out of office if that became necessary. Accordingly, people were more interested in the governance of their town. That was revealed in voting percentages at local elections. In Reading the percentage turnout was usually between 45 and 50 per cent. overall, whereas in Berkshire County Council the percentage turnout was between 18 and 24 per cent. Those figures speak for themselves. Reading County Borough Council was an example of government near the people, of the people and by the people with their consent and interest.
Let us contrast that with the position now. Decisions, instead of being taken as near as possible to the people affected, are taken remotely. I know to my cost that that is the case in Berkshire. Road schemes, for example, which affect people in Reading intimately and adversely are not decided by the people of Reading but by the people of Slough, Maidenhead and Newbury. Those people sit behind maps which are often out of date. How can they decide what kind of services Reading should be offered?
At present counties tend to be officer governed. The district councils, however, are more likely to be member governed. Certainly in Reading there was no question of who ran the council. Whichever party was in power, the members ran the council; and rightly so. It should be the members —the elected representatives —who run councils and not the officers.
Because of the system there are bad relations between district councils and county councils. That is certainly true in Reading at present. Certainly while I was the Member of Parliament for Swindon there was bitter resentment on the part of Swindon people and their councillors at what they saw as the unnecessary interference in and baleful influence on their affairs by the Wiltshire County Council. Swindon's resentment was compounded by the fact that the town provided 30 per cent. of the total local income of the county council. Government grants which Swindon believed should have been administered by Swindon were being disposed of by remote county councillors in the little country town of Trowbridge in Wiltshire where the county council headquarters are situated.
It is essential, if councillors are to be really accountable, that there should be annual elections. I hope that we all agree with that. It is a great discipline to have one-third or a quarter of a council standing down every year. Coupled with that increased accountability local authorities could, and should, be given a general competence power. Under those circumstances rate-capping could be eliminated.
I now turn to local government finance. Let me say immediately that I believe—and have believed for a long time—that rates were a perfectly respectable

999
form of tax. There is nothing wrong with a property tax. A property tax is easy to collect and difficult to evade. The problems with the rates were that they were being required increasingly, as the noble Lord said, to pay for national services when grants, as a percentage of total expenditure, were reduced from about 60 per cent. in 1978 to 46 per cent. now. That caused the strains on the rating system.
There was also the failure to update the rateable value base, or increase it in line with inflation. That caused the relationship between different properties to get out of proportion, to the detriment of smaller properties and generally poorer ratepayers. There was no attempt—and has been no attempt—to find other forms of revenue to supplement rates. In my view a property tax remains a very respectable tax which should be reintroduced, but with a base that can be "dynamised" at frequent intervals. There is no need for frequent revaluations; the RPI can be used to update the base. However, a property tax needs to be supplemented by other forms of local authorities' own income. It is important that they have their own income which cannot be touched or undermined by central government.
I am not in favour of a local income tax—I think it would be administratively difficult—but there are other means of supplementing such income. For example, why should we not have a sales tax on non-essential goods? People say that that would be administratively difficult to collect, but they manage to do so in other countries. They have such a tax in the United States and Europe so why on earth should we not be able to administer one in this country? We ought to think about trying a similar tax. Why should not local authorities have a proportion of petrol revenues for the petrol sold in their areas? Those are measures that we ought to consider.
The reorganisation and financing of local government should not be a party-political matter. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. Local government and local democracy are far too important to be settled by a political dogfight. There is probably a need for a new Royal Commission whose report could be submitted to a Speaker's Conference—to a Speaker's Conference, not to the Government—to try to obtain all-party agreement on a system of local government and its financing that would be acceptable across the political spectrum, and therefore likely to be long-lasting once enacted.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I welcome the chance to speak on a subject that has been close to my heart for the last quarter of a century. It is certainly something in which I was involved for all of that time, and longer. My only concern is that the subject is so vast that in the reasonable time that one should take, how can one say meaningful things right across the spectrum? However, I shall do my best to cover some of the matters. I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rippon for affording to us the opportunity.
1000
Let me say right away that I wholeheartedly agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said—and that is not something that I do too frequently—when he talked about unitary, all-purpose authorities, and when he reminded us of what pertained when he was in local government in the county boroughs. That absolutely duplicates my own experience, albeit in an authority several times the size, but the principal was the same, the effects were the same, and it worked very well. It even worked well when we had so many more functions than authorities have today including health, water, the police, and many others.
The closest that we have to that situation at the present time is of course the metropolitan districts which seem to work well enough so far as I can see. Of course some inevitably do better than others, but then there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing that I should like to see happen in any reorganisation that would change them. Indeed, quite the contrary: I would add to them. It makes little sense to me to have authorities the size of Southampton, Bristol, Nottingham, and Leicester and about seven or eight other such authorities, some of them with hundreds of thousands of people, staying within the present shire county arena. Call them metropolitan or county borough authorities if you like, but it seems to me that they should certainly come out and have their own all-purpose function.
I agree with those who have already said that, as a general principle, the less tiers of authority the better. When we have more than one authority levying precepts and taxes of whatever kind upon the same local people, in whatever form, it certainly blurs accountability and responsibility. People just do not know to whom to go to complain, to question, to query. It is really less than we ought to be aiming for.
The metropolitan counties and the GLC were classic examples, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, of duplication and overlapping. Although many of the people working in them—and I knew them well—were excellent and indeed very able officers, and there were many excellent elected members too, as a system it was just not necessary. That has surely been proven by the fact that since they have disappeared—and I speak better for the metropolitan areas than London, as you would expect me to do—they have not been missed. Many of the services—I could name one or two of them if pressed —are being carried out far better today than they were then, and that leaves aside the matter of cost.
In my view the only situation where more than one tier is justified—and here I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—is where the size is too small. If the size in terms of population and resources is too small, then the fact is that they just cannot achieve what they ought, and want, to do. In another incarnation I used to sit and go through the budgets of many of the authorities which used to come to us from the shire districts and I was always slightly taken aback by how small were those budgets, and the problems that faced them because they were so small. For that reason I think that that is where the shire counties actually have a role, and I for one would

1001
retain the shire counties, taking out, as I have said, the large towns in the areas where it makes sense so to do. I believe that if we had a restructuring of this kind it might be well received by local government, and my goodness, would not that be a change?
I now turn to finance. The first matter that we always need to look at is the cost of financing the spending of local government on education. I understand why there are those who would like to see the cost of funding education removed to the centre. Comprising as it does some 70 per cent. of the spending of every authority which has it as a function, it is bound to impact dramatically upon the level of local taxation, whether it be community charge, rates or whatever. It is tempting, but I have to say to myself that, on balance, the downside in doing that is too great. We do not know what effect it would have upon central taxation and the costs do not go away. Somebody has to pay, in any case, and we do not know what that would mean.
Even worse, it would mean Whitehall having to be involved in the business of running scores of local education services with all the local decisions that it would then have to take. I have to say that the mind boggles at the prospect. Clearly, Whitehall is not in a position to do that, even if it were desirable.
Another alternative which my noble friend Lord Rippon touched upon was teachers' pay. To take that out and give it back to the centre would impact greatly upon the problem. However, although the financial effect would be significant, such a move would eliminate local discretion to a far greater extent than I wish to see.
A possible solution which I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench may consider seriously—it is not original but I have long thought that it might be of value—would be to take, say, half of teachers' pay back to central funding. That would make a large enough impact to be meaningful. I am told that in my own city of Leeds it would today take £100 off the community charge. That is a significant amount. So it would achieve a major objective while at the same time retaining to local government the discretion and the decision-taking which it ought to retain. I hope that my noble friend may give consideration to that.
Those who pour scorn upon the community charge forget all too easily that, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, there was much that was effective in the rating system, certainly from the collection point of view, there were inequities and unfairnesses. Now we do not even think about that. But your Lordships know the classical inequities, such as the lady on her own paying the same rates as several earners living in the house next door, which could not possibly be fair. There was much that was not right. Nevertheless I am sure that that is now in the past and we shall not get it back.
The two basic problems of the community charge have been the ability to pay and the difficulty of collection. They are the main issues and I do not want in any way to belittle them. They are very important indeed: and, as events have proved, they are critical
1002
points. If we are looking at ways in which things might have been done, if we had stuck to the original intention of phasing-in the community charge over five years, it might have been far more acceptable than it has proved to be in the event. But that is now history.
Now the search is on for something else. Nothing that I have heard from any source has been better. Local income tax leaves much to be desired. I studied and thought long about it when it was put forward as Layfield's preferred option. But it goes too far the other way and I am very nervous indeed of the discretion which it leaves to many authorities who —and I have to say it, reluctantly—punish many of the people who come within their orbit. If noble Lords think that that is an extreme way of putting it, I shall talk to anyone afterwards and can refer to a number of authorities where you would all hate to live if they had the option of deciding what your local income tax should be, as well as everything else. So I do not like that alternative for that reason, and also it presents other problems.
The sales tax would not work in this country. In, I think, 1983 there was a Green Paper produced by the Government, when we put forward 15 alternatives to the rates. I remember debating it with your Lordships from the Dispatch Box. We went through the 15 alternatives and discarded every single one of them. Is it not interesting that one of them was the poll tax?
The sales tax is a system that works in the United States which is a great country in area. But can your Lordships imagine having a certain level of sales tax in Leeds, and then going nine miles down the road to Bradford which has a different sales tax? Furthermore, there are so many parts of the country where you cannot tell when you leave one town and enter another. Can your Lordships imagine going around Lancashire to Manchester, Burnley, Oldham, Rochdale, and so on, all with different sales taxes? I do not think it would work in practice, although I like very much the underlying theology behind it. We might well return to a system which encompasses a tax based upon property, in some form or other, and the ability-to-pay factor will now be high on the agenda of any change that comes about.
If I may just digress for a second, I am sorry in some ways that local government has lost the right to fix the business rate. But again I have to say, sadly, that there were authorities where the excesses were too great, and where local businesses were used as a milch cow, which simply would not do. At the end of the day, what always happens where you get excess is that there comes a level of revulsion beyond which people will not go and then somebody acts. That is the beauty of our whole system, especially when you compare it with others which we see around the world today.
To return to the domestic rate, I see no reason to denigrate an alternative which combines a property-based factor with individual per capita contributions. Ideally it should be built into one easy-to-understand formula, if that is possible. I cannot stand up here today and say, "Eureka, this is it!" There are people working on an alternative, but it is incumbent upon us

1003
to put forward any ideas. If there was an easy answer, we would have it by now. In the meantime, we continue to await the results and conclusions of the Government's deliberations, for which we are holding our breath.
May I comment briefly on one or two other observations that have been made? I am very much in favour of annual elections. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for 14 years I worked under a system where we had them. It is a tremendous discipline. It is right, and I do not see why we should have longer than that in local government. Local people do not mind the system at all. I do not know of any elected member, in any of the metropolitan areas where they have it, who objects to it. Why should you be stuck with something for four years when circumstances change so much? It is a great discipline and I am strongly in favour of it.
The concept of elected paid mayors is a fascinating one. I spent some time looking into it in different towns in America, as well as in Germany and in France. But in the United States the culture is different. Here we are concerned with representation of the people at the lowest level. It is fine if councillors are so available to people that they all know them well, in wards with up to 15,000 people with three councillors. I do not think there should be more than that. All the people know who are their councillors; and if they do not, they make sure that they do not put them back next year, not in four years' time. That is what local government should be about. With an elected paid mayor and a small council one cannot have that system.
I visited Los Angeles and attended a council meeting there. That city has a population between 9 million and 11 million. There are 13 members on the city council—13 councillors for a population of millions. There is a paid mayor, and the system works well. It is a different system; and, frankly, the culture is different. I agree that we should look more fully into such a possibility—I think that there is merit in looking at it—but the downside that I have mentioned should also be taken into account.
When one gets older, all the policemen seem to look so young. When one looks at the council members, one tends to think that they are never as good as they were in one's own time. However, it is not unfair to say that there is much in the fact that many people who have a great contribution to make do not now stand for election to local government. Certainly there are fewer business people now than there have ever been. I know of no local authority—Labour or otherwise —who believe that that is a good thing. Such people have great expertise to bring to the job, and sadly they do not come. I could take much more time than is available today to speak about these matters and that point is worthy of genuine consideration when the Government examine many other issues of that sort.
Finally, I should like to say a quick word about PR. In my experience PR does not work. The nearest experience that I had of it was that we tried it for two successive years on the council in Leeds. In one year we were in minority control and the following year we
1004
were in minority opposition. I am sure all the Labour members would agree that those were the hardest two years of all our time on the council. We could not make decisions or get on with making things happen. It was just a headache. I understand the pluses that those who advocate PR put forward. I am not without sympathy. Things are not black and white. But in practice my experience is that it does not work and certainly not in local government.
Old habits die hard. I shall not do it, but I was horribly tempted when listening to the noble Lords who have spoken to make a list of all the points that they made and comment on them. A price that has to be paid is that I cannot do that any more and I cannot go ahead with it. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do it far better than I can.
Nevertheless, I end by saying that I agree with other noble Lords who have said that the time has now come for a review. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, whom I have quoted at length in what I have said, said that 20 years was not long enough. But the past 20 years have seen change at a rapid pace, far beyond what has taken place in the previous 20 to 40 or even 50 years. The world has moved on. The time is now right to have some action—not that that should put off the Government from doing what has to be done to make things better now. While that is going on, at the same time a major review could well be undertaken to the advantage of everybody concerned.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I have to apologise in advance for the fact that I shall have to leave the debate for a short time a little later in order to keep an engagement which I have not been able to defer. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has given the House an opportunity to discuss this important subject. I cannot bring to it the depth of knowledge and experience of local government that he and so many of your Lordships possess. But during my time at the Treasury, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, I had a number of dealings with local government and was present at a good many meetings at which the problems of local government and its relationship with central government were discussed. Of course I was neither a little Liberal nor a little Conservative—nor, for that matter, a little Labourite. However, I can assure your Lordships that I am an intellectual chap and during those meetings I sometimes thought of things that would astonish noble Lords.
When I first became concerned with the relationship between central and local government, which is now some 40 years ago, there was no doubt that much was not as good as it might be. But things worked more or less. I think that one of the reasons for that was that although there were disputes and disagreements, they were carried on within a general acceptance of the underlying principles and framework of the relationship between central and local government. That meant that the two structures—central and local government—broadly speaking, would be able to work together with a reasonable degree of mutual trust and confidence. Latterly,

1005
during the past 15 years or so, we seem to have lost that mutual trust and confidence and the relationship has become much more adversarial and even confrontational. I do not believe that anybody, least of all the electors, taxpayers and community charge payers, gain from that.
It seems to me that one of the principal reasons for that situation is that we have not been able to reconcile the principle of allowing the greatest possible degree of autonomy for local government, to which almost all of us a re committed in general terms, with the need felt by successive governments of both political parties, particularly in recent years, to constrain the level of expenditure in local government for the purposes of macro-economic and financial management. At the same time we have seen the emergence of groups in local government, sometimes in control of councils, which have sought deliberately to flout those constraints and, as it seems from Whitehall, to defy the decisions of Parliament.
During that period there have been a number of attempts to reform aspects of local government—to reform the functions, structure, organisation, standards of conduct, the accountability or finance. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, it has not been difficult to identify weaknesses and make objections to the old arrangements. We do not seem to have been very successful in achieving durable improvement and reform.
There are two main reasons for that situation. The first is that every attempt at reform becomes a matter of strong party political controversy, so that all too often a coherent and logical proposal for change is compromised by adjustments introduced at least partly if not primarily for party political advantage or the avoidance of disadvantage. The result is not only a botched-up change but also a determination to reverse the imbalance of political advantage and disadvantage that has been created, with the risk of successive tinkerings as party fortunes shift in the Palace of Westminster.
The second reason is that we never seem to be able to look at the range of issues and problems as a whole. We reform the functions and—hey presto! —the structure is not right. We reform the structure and the system of finance no longer fits. We do not sufficiently try to find out how the requirements of control and accountability are to be reflected in the organisation and structure or in the system of finance. Is it any wonder that the ship of state of local government is creaking and leaking at so many points?
What conclusions should we draw? I suggest that there are two quite simple conclusions—at least they are simple to state. First, while I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, upon the need for a review, I think that he does not go far enough. I believe that, as other noble Lords said, the time has come to review the whole state of local government and the relationship between central and local government in this country in all its aspects and in a single comprehensive survey, so that not only
1006
every aspect comes under scrutiny but also the various ways in which each aspect interacts with the others are considered.
Secondly, I should like to echo the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that such a review should not be conducted exclusively by politicians at Westminster or by civil servants in Whitehall, even by a process of consultation with interested parties. It is not possible totally to exclude politics from the process, nor would noble Lords expect me to think that it was sensible to deny such a review the experience and knowledge that civil servants can bring to it. But it is desirable to detach the review so far as possible from the day to day thrust and parry of party politics and from the ordinary business of administration, whether in Whitehall or in council offices.
I recognise that it is not possible to leave in its present state the system by which local authorities raise local revenue. I await with no less interest than other noble Lords the Government's proposals for modifying or replacing the community charge system. But cannot we let that be the last of the piecemeal changes until a comprehensive review has been completed?
I suggest that any such review should be guided by the principle of subsidiarity—retaining the greatest possible degree of local control and local accountability for local services, including education. I was interested in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that a half of teachers' pay be transferred to the national Exchequer. It is not an unreasonable suggestion given that the rates of pay of teachers in the state system are nationally determined.
My noble friend Lord Knights may have some views to offer on this, but I should not wish to see the creation of a national police force. I understand that some police functions may be best organised on a national or regional basis. However, I am not convinced that it still makes sense to have as many as 43 separate police forces in England and Wales.
That apart, I am inclined to the view that the county council strikes about the right balance between being large enough to be able to provide a full range of services with a proper degree of competence and being near enough to the ground to be seen to be locally accountable and responsive to local needs. However, that prejudges the outcome of the comprehensive review that I propose.
How should such a review be undertaken? Royal commissions have been out of favour of late. Nonetheless I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it is pre-eminently a subject to be entrusted to a royal commission with members chosen not so much in a representative capacity as for their qualifications to consider the subject and contribute to the process of review with dispassionate and non-partisan clear-sightedness and wisdom. Such a royal commission, with a well-chosen membership including suitable people from the world of politics, should be able to produce proposals, as the noble Lord suggested, which could provide a reasonable balance of interests which would persuade the political parties to accept them and to make them work.

1007
Such a review will take time—some years, no doubt—if it is to be comprehensive, thorough and authoritative. I believe that the six months allowed by the Government for the current review of structure and funding is far too short if the job is to be done properly. However, I am sure that it is worth taking the longer time because such a review would have a reasonable chance of establishing a coherent and durable system of local government in all its aspects, and of re-fashioning a framework of relationships between central and local government which would command broad acceptance on both sides. It must surely be better to proceed in that way than to continue year after year to tinker with different aspects of the system, producing an increasingly incoherent tangle of arrangements which suit no one.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as I recollect, local government was the subject of my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I have not reread what I said in my speech 10 years ago. I suspect that in the intervening 10 years not only has a great deal occurred but my ignorance at that time is now ignorance on a much higher plain thanks largely to the discussions in your Lordships' House to which we have again been directed by my noble friend Lord Rippon.
My impression over the years, having watched the changes and having listened to the debates, is that we all suffer from a series of unexplored myths about British government, central and local, and the relationship of the citizen to his government. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong—to whom we have listened with proper attention—referred to the main myth in central government. He referred to the Goverment's wish to subordinate other considerations to their control of macro-economic matters. I do not believe it possible for any government to control the economy. Whether guided by the late Lord Keynes or the living Milton Friedman, makes no difference. One has only to follow what has happened to the economy under a series of governments to see that economic policy does not of itself justify the way in which Government approach other problems. That was illustrated by a point raised: that it was hard to see on what economic theory the limitation of local government expenditure on housebuilding as a result of its sales is justified.
However, the illusions with regard to local government are much greater and more widespread. Listening to speeches, and in particular reading the briefs that one receives from the Association of Local Authorities, in particular from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities (which I thought was the most extraordinary document to come my way for some time) one has the impression that every citizen in Britain is dying to make his impact on the functioning, responsibilities and activities of his local government. One has the impression that not merely does he wish to vote yearly, but would be passionately in favour of voting weekly.
In the end the illusion is that people understand the source of the finance which provides the services.
1008
People clearly want services. Their views on how those services should be provided ought to be taken seriously. However, there is an illusion—and this point relates to the debate about the community charge into which I have no intention of entering —that one can get away from paying for them. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was quite right. People understand less with a multi-tier system than with a single-tier system. One knows in the single-tier system who is raising and who is spending the money. Therefore, if I were considering the subject simply as a matter of financial realism, my instinct would be in favour of single-tier authorities.
However, I strongly suspect also—it is an even greater problem—that most people are unaware of the relationship of local government and central government finance. They are not appreciative of the fact that the proportion of grant to money raised locally varies but that the services are paid by themselves as taxpayers as well as being rate payers, community charge payers or whatever it may be. There is an equally widespread misunderstanding of the way in which the National Health Service is financed.
There is a good deal of questioning over aspects of local government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, that there is a very strong case for a long, cool look at the subject. However, one has to accept that it will be a long time, if ever, before some rekindled enthusiasm exists for participation, whether at the lowest level by voting, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, reminded us, with the more important participation as elected members of council. Whether or not the same applies to the recruitment of permanent officials upon whom local and central government rely I am not in a position to say. There would be general agreement, as indeed there must, that the quality of those providing the services and the resources available are the two key issues. All other issues are subordinate, including the question of areas and boundaries, although that excites understandable sentiment among some people.
My present worry is that while we are waiting for this perfect solution to our problems, we may be under the impulse of current problems, taking steps which damage the services themselves. In particular, I am worried about suggestions that we should deal with the education budget and its administration in terms of how to relieve the pressure on local taxation. If one were starting afresh there might be a reason to ask: why should we not have a national system of education like some of our competitors, or a regional system as in Germany? But we have not; we have an existing system which is local.
Therefore, one must ask: are there any good grounds for changing that by transferring part of the finance, and inevitably part of the responsibility, to central government? Although I can see the arithmetical arguments, merely to transfer half teachers' pay will contribute to the muddle in the public's mind. It will not know how the teachers are paid, who pays them or who is responsible for their employment and conditions of service. Such aspects cannot be divided.

1009
As some noble Lords will know I am not an enthusiast for local education authorities. Being careful not to display any party bias, I shall take Nottinghamshire and East Sussex as being examples of authorities to which I should not entrust the running of schools if I had any way of stopping them. As the results clearly show, there are other authorities which on the whole do a perfectly good job. Nevertheless, at present it is difficult to argue for a major change. There is something to be said for the variety that might be introduced by grant-maintained schools, if in relatively small numbers. For the same reason, I am in favour of city technology colleges. However, if, say, half the schools in a local authority looked to Whitehall for their finance, direction and general services, while the other half looked to the local authority, the confusion would be great indeed.
It is a mistake to believe that you can go all the way in applying either market principles or parental choice to the educational system. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, there are 28,000 schools. There must be a system of ensuring that they receive the finance and the services that they require. Unless one is prepared for a revolution one must accept such ameliorations as can be introduced—for instance, the nation al curriculum and perhaps a strengthening of the central inspectorate—to raise educational standards. That must be our general objective. Perhaps at the moment that is all that can be usefully done.
There are particular reasons for saying that now. Parliament has enacted the Education Reform Act and other measures dealing with education. However, we have not yet fully worked through even the implications of the national curriculum; the papers are only now emerging from the DES. Therefore, school teachers—in particular head teachers who are confronted for the first time with budget management—have an enormous amount of information to assimilate and an enormous degree of reorganisation in their schools if they are not to be overwhelmed with paper. That appears to be the fate of all institutions in modern democracies. I say that because this morning in another place I heard an eminent British soldier describing the impact on the morale and recruitment possibilities of the British army of officers' desks which are so tightly packed with questionnaires, documents and circulars that the officers have little time to be with their troops or to exercise them. We all risk that. The schools have experienced it and, as noble Lords will know, so have the universities.
Even if we could envisage a much better system, schools should be given at least five years to assimilate the changes that have taken place. As that might roughly coincide with the report of the Royal Commission (as I hope we may call it) of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, the timing will work out quite nicely. Perhaps by then we shall have a better idea about where the responsibility for education is to be placed. Other noble Lords may talk with greater knowledge about the police and other services. One must make as transparent as possible—to use the mode word —the system of government that we have and not imagine that what is obvious to us is obvious to every citizen in the land.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I felt some anxiety when I saw that I was to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, because I thought that I should disagree with a great deal of what he said. In fact I find myself in considerable agreement. First, I too have always been an enthusiast of single-tier authorities and I was delighted to hear him say that education should remain local. I am glad that he cast doubts on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, about transferring half of teachers' pay, slightly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. That would further confuse people's minds. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord's statement that local people do not know much about the local government of their area. People are remarkably interested and know a little more about it than he believes.
I, too, must apologise because I must be away from the Chamber for some time later this evening. I hope that that will not be during the winding-up speeches. However, I apologise to the Minister, who is absent, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, who is absent. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will pass on my apologies.
I wish to speak on only one aspect of this wide, difficult and controversial subject. It was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, in a remarkable speech with a great deal of which I totally agree. The one subject on which I wish to touch is what may be the financial and educational effects if all or part of education expenditure were to be transferred from local to central government. We know that an Early Day Motion has been tabled in another place signed by over 80 Conservative Members demanding that transfer as a means of reducing the poll tax. We know also that the progress of the teachers' pay legislation has been stopped. The Report stage of that Bill which was expected a fortnight ago has, at the moment, no date. Naturally we look upon that as sinister as we were told that the Government wanted that Bill out of this House by Easter. There is now no possibility of that happening. We regard that as significant and when the Minister replies, I hope that she will comment on that.
I am sure that we can all agree that, if that expenditure is removed from local government, it must be found from elsewhere, whether by income tax, increases in VAT, higher taxes on business or by de-indexing personal allowances. First, I shall assume that teachers' salaries are removed. I am taking the 1991–92 figures. Salaries are estimated to be £8.75 billion. On that assumption the increase in the basic rate of income tax would have to be 4.4p in the pound and the proportionate reduction in the poll tax would be £133. That assumes no passing on of the business rate to local authorities. The reduced poll tax figure if some reductions were passed on would be £262. If all school expenditure—£11.54 billion—were removed, there would be a 5.8p increase in the basic rate and a reduction in poll tax of £176 or £346, depending on what was done with the business rate. If all education expenditure were removed, the increase in basic rate

1011
would be 8.7p and the reduction in the poll tax would be £264 or £520, again according to what is done with the business rate.
That attractive decrease would carry with it two problems for the Government. First, they must continue to levy rates from businesses as before and that has not proved to be very popular. Secondly, having done that, they cannot keep any of the money for government purposes and, therefore, they must raise more income tax or whatever.
One interesting fact to come out of those figures is that if all education expenditure were to be taken out and the maximum reduction in poll tax of £520 achieved, that would imply a negative poll tax, as the Government's forecast for the average poll tax is £381. Whatever source the Government took to raise the education expenditure—whether increased taxation or borrowing—the extra burden on central government would be unavoidable. There would obviously be serious political implications for any government who proposed tax increases on the scale which I have mentioned, especially as they would provide no improvement in services and would have to be introduced for purely political reasons. I suggest that the figures which I have given call into question the political practicality of the proposal in the Early Day Motion.
I should like to take three examples which show the possible implications for individuals in different types of job. In each case I take the figure which represents the average salary for that group of workers. The figures are taken from the New Earnings Survey conducted in April 1990 or LACSAB. A single nurse earning a gross salary of £12,000 would be £134 worse off if teachers' pay were transferred and £263 per annum worse off if all education spending were removed. A single secondary school teacher earning £17,000 could lose £354 or £698 depending on the scale of transferred spending. A single company director earning £50,000 would lose between £1,806 and £3,569 per annum, again depending on the attitude taken towards the business rate.
I shall not pretend that there will be no gainers. However, the scale of increases for those in very different categories shows what a difficult problem Mr. Heseltine and the Government have on their hands. I cannot believe that supporters of the EDM had worked out all the implications and consequences of their proposal.
In case my figures are challenged, I should like to quote a Written Answer given by Mr. Norman Lamont to Sir Ian Gilmour on 23rd January of this year. Sir Ian had asked if the Chancellor would estimate,
"by how much the standard rate of personal income tax would need to be increased if (a) education and (b) education, fire and police were financed by income tax, assuming no change in the grant paid by central Government to the local authorities".
The Answer was:
"Assuming no change were made in the level of revenue support grant and non-domestic rates paid by central Government to local authorities, the basic rate of income tax would need to increase by (a) 8½p and (b) 10p if these services were financed by income tax. However, if education, fire and
1012
law and order services were funded in line with these proposals, the extra central Government funding would more than exceed anticipated community charge income for 1991–92".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/1/91; col. 218.]
Therefore, the figure quoted is 8.5p and my figure was 8.7p. There is not much difference.
I turn to the educational effects. If education expenditure were to be removed from local authorities, who would do the work? One assumes that it would be done by the DES. Is it capable of doing that and has it the staff qualified in the areas in which they would need to be qualified? One has no confidence that it has. Over the years I have tried to find out how many teachers are in the DES at the level of principal and above. The Government have refused to answer and one draws one's own conclusions from that.
What about the great expertise, experience and knowledge built up over the years in shire and county halls? LEAs have come in for a lot of stick in recent years. In my view, that is very often unjustified stick. In my time—and it is a long time—both as a councillor and education spokesman here, I have known a great many very competent, well-informed and caring officers with a wealth of local knowledge. How could that be provided centrally? What will happen to the diversity which is found in different LEAs, the ideas that are thrown up and the good practice which comes from an imaginative and enterprising officer and is then spread around?
It is critical to the long-term health of a plural society for systems to be devised which accommodate rather than suppress or confine diverse institutions. Local innovation and proper civic pride are symptomatic of the very real support enjoyed by local authorities. Planning, quality control and the provision of specialist services are strategic functions best suited to the county level of government. Transfer to central government would be totally inappropriate since schools are a very important part of local communities.
What about the democratic aspect? A councillor is elected, has responsibilities and is accountable to his or her electorate. How could staff at the DES fulfil that function? We have watched the gradual erosion of local government. Health, water and transport services have all been taken away and the remaining services subjected to greater central control; for example, housing, planning and education. The past decade has seen an increase in the pace of enforced change which amounts to a sustained attack on local democracy and on local government. Local government's power to express its view and protest against what is happening to it was limited by gagging Acts in 1986 and 1988. Authorities operate already within a battery of controls and standards set in a variety of ways by statute, central guidance, codes of practice, departmental directions and so on. Surely the internal checks on legality, quality and efficiency to which local government is subject through the ombudsman, the local auditor and the Audit Commission are sufficient to scrutinise standards of service and procedure.
In no other country in Europe has there been similar moves towards centralisation on the scale

1013
which this Government have brought about and which they threaten to continue to bring about. In Europe the tendency is to move down the path of greater decentralisation.
If education were removed from local government, that would have very serious implications for the quality of the service. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, did not favour that. I shall mention a few of the areas that I believe would suffer greatly. There are pupils with special needs, and parents would have difficulties obtaining advice and proper assessments. Adult education courses, such as advanced literacy, may disappear. English as a second language could be lost entirely. As regards further education, funding could shift towards work-related training and away from courses for students with special needs, and non-vocational and minority interests. In regard to voluntary groups, youth and community organisations may lose the funding and the support of LEAs. Finally, as regards church schools—mentioned by the right reverend Prelate—their partnerships with the LEAs would disappear.
It was suggested, and I believe it to be true, that if LEAs were abolished it would soon be found essential to re-invent the wheel and create new bodies to take on the functions that the old bodies performed. Neither the DES nor remote bureaucratic and unaccountable regional offices of central government departments could cope and provide that service. I predict that if education were to be taken out of local control, that would be the end of local government.
We should not forget how many local councillors of all parties go on to serve in the House of Commons and indeed in your Lordships' House. They learn the skills of practical democracy in local government. It would be appalling to destroy what is a very important basis of local democracy.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I obtained experience of local government as a county councillor in Cheshire in the early 1970s at a time of many changes, and then in another capacity I became involved in other local government throughout the north-west of England; namely, in Merseyside, Manchester and Lancashire. Therefore I have seen the good and the bad; Cheshire is part of the good side of local government. It has a great county structure and tradition. It works extremely well with the districts within it and is therefore a good representative of what the people want to be involved in. On the other hand, as my noble friend stated, Liverpool and Merseyside is at the other extreme. During the period when I was involved in the 1970s, it became an increasing disaster caused by the vacuum created by certain leaders leaving. The people who came in had no respect for the electorate—the people who voted for them—for those who paid the rates or for the future of the city.
One must therefore consider the wide scope that local government covers. Although I am a great supporter of the democratic process of local government, believing that it should be a local government in the sense that it represents the local
1014
wishes of the people, we must appreciate that within that system there will be wide-ranging views, depending upon the leadership that ebbs and flows within the local environment.
Within the past 10 years the Government have introduced a number of changes which have improved local government. They insisted on a tendering process which made local government think again about how to run its affairs more efficiently. That has brought it closer to industry. It recognises the need to develop close relationships with the businesses within its community, not merely as a source of revenue but as suppliers. Change has made councillors and managers of councils reconsider how to conduct their business more effectively. My local council in Cheshire, where I now operate, is very pleased with the system of local management of schools. It has brought a greater understanding of management techniques and allowed its resources in the shape of individuals to be used more effectively as administrators rather than day-to-day managers of the schools.
The Government got rid of the rates. I cannot understand why some noble Lords believe that to be a bad thing. The rates were abhorred by everybody in the 1970s and early 1980s. Everyone believed that the system was unfair, unrepresentative and caused extreme problems. I would say that the structure of the rates systems of Manchester and Liverpool specifically, allowed them to be dominated by the extreme left, which destroyed what they were supposed to support.
I accept that the way in which the community charge has been allocated creates what appears to be an unfairness in the system. I do not believe that it is unfair. Everybody who uses a service should pay for it. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out, it is the taxes levied on the majority of us on the basis of wealth that pay for most local government spending, not the money raised locally.
I suggest that one way of looking at the matter— because the principle that everybody is seen to make a contribution to his or her local costs is important—is that, if we are to review the system, we should perhaps have one based more upon self-assessment. I see no reason why we cannot compromise between a local income tax, on the one hand—I appreciate the problems that exist—and, on the other, an individual charge based upon a system of self-assessment. That system has been very successful in the United States. People state the amount of their income; a system of checking exists and people know that ultimately checks will be made. Within that checking system people say what their income will be and that fixes the amount of money they pay as a contribution to their local taxes.
We have already spoken of the relationship between counties and districts. I believe that the county system should stay and we should not opt for a purely unitary system, as some noble Lords have suggested. I appreciate that one of our motivations for wanting this system may depend upon whether or not

1015
the council does what we want it to do. We look at it in a personal way rather than with a view to the greater good.
We need to look at matters strategically, environmentally and economically over a wider area than can be coped with within a district. Although it is right and proper for district councils to represent closely what the people want, and, on the wider issues, to be able to explain the needs of their local community, at the same time many decisions would not be made in everybody's best interests if they were left to the local council. If we took that to the nth degree and retreated to the very small groups, nobody would do anything. Everybody would want to see the new development, the business, the factory, the growth and the road not in their small area but in somebody else's.
At some stage certain decisions need to be taken over a wider area for the benefit of the country and the development of the whole region. The present structure is one that needs to he left alone. However, I accept that in certain urban areas there may be an argument for the kind of system that exists in London, Manchester and Liverpool.
Mention of regional government has not been made in this debate but was made elsewhere. I believe that this country needs regional government like a hole in the head. We already have the confusion and problems mentioned by many noble Lords as being created by the present system. I cannot see how the imposition of a further level of government within the existing system will help anyone. It will create more costs and confusion, and the opportunity at the end of the day to take more from the person who must pay. I believe that there is a need for regional matters to be considered at some stage. There is a role to be played by a regional committee, group or forum made up of representatives from the county who can take a wider view of certain environmental and strategic matters and possibly, in a way, of our place in the world.
We have already seen changes in attitude of local government officers, officials and members due to the new systems that now exist. They take a more business-like and managerial approach. That will happen more and more. Local government will evolve very rapidly over the next 20 years as the demands of local communities change dramatically. Perhaps I may give one brief example. Industry will become more globally financed. It is inevitable that after 1992 and the removal of trade barriers we shall see the importance of inward investment from large global companies and supranational firms. The key to the growth of future employment and business will be the attraction of that investment, not by pitting Cheshire against Staffordshire, but Cheshire against Wurttemberg in Germany or Normandy in France. We have to have structures that can deal with matters on that scale. We have to have people involved who can see things on that scale.
I should greatly like to see a much closer relationship between local authorities, particularly at county level, and business, in order to deal with
1016
business matters. There is a much greater need for business to realise the importance of releasing executives of the right age to be involved in local government. We all know of the advantages. Governments have recently invited business people to take part in government and vice versa. That needs to be done much more effectively at local level so that businesses can understand the political pressures on people to make things happen. Similarly, those involved in local government need to understand the pressures on business so that the employment and investment needed can be provided to make a particular area grow. I should like the Government to consider that suggestion.
It does not matter how we finance such provision because, at the end of the day, it is the ordinary citizen who has to foot the bill, whether the money is raised through central government, local government or income tax. We can only make that money available if we run our business operations efficiently. We have to be productive and make profits available to put into those provisions. There is a great responsibility on local government to operate in exactly the same way with its money. When things get tight in local government, the reaction is to say that a school must be closed or an activity must be stopped, whereas in business, if there are difficulties, costs have to be cut. All the normal activities must be continued, but they have to be conducted much more efficiently by getting rid of staff or cutting back this or that. Everything must be done more effectively. That is the spirit that I should like to see carried forward in local government.
Many noble Lords have spoken about reviews. By and large, when we have had reviews and great and sudden changes in structures, we have caused more problems than we have found solutions. Most of what is good about local government has evolved rather than being imposed. I suggest that that is the way ahead. We should not have sudden major structural changes. As my noble friend Lord Beloff said, we are dealing with the ordinary people of this country, who want involvement in local affairs but who need to be taught to understand in order to carry out their functions. They need to understand the changing world and to help to manage the changes in their society and in their own lives. That is an important role for local government. It involves and should be helped along by a positive approach from government which makes no drastic changes to that policy.
5.43 p.m.
The Earl of Gainsborough: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for instituting this debate on a very topical matter at the present time. We know that local government finance is under review. We understand that the review being undertaken by the Secretary of State for the Environment and other Ministers will be made known shortly. I should also declare an interest in the matter as the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has done. He is now the distinguished president of the Association of District Councils. When that body came into being

1017
after reorganisation, it was my privilege to be its first president. I am still interested and should therefore declare my interest for that reason.
We have heard a great deal about the community charge. Speaking from these Benches it is not for me to discuss its political implications. We have seen demonstrations up and down the country and all kinds of activities. In our magistrates' court we sit week after week adjudicating on matters which magistrates should never be called on to adjudicate; namely, whether people should or should not pay the community charge. We do not have information available on each case. Nevertheless we have the community charge. Until something else comes along which will be better, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it is perfectly right that everyone in the community of adult age should contribute to the cost of services. How that is to be done will have to wait until the review is available. Until now the community charge has shown up a number of serious problems and anomalies which are particularly difficult for people who are less able to pay than others.
Today local government is very different from what it was when I first became a councillor in 1948. I was a member of a small RDC in Rutland. The population was a bout 9,000 which increased as the post-war period developed. We had a staff of only five people in the office. The organisation was very small and very close to the people. I am not suggesting that that can be done today. Rutland is now a district council, and a part of Leicestershire. That caused a good deal of fuss when it happened. We now have a population of 37,000 and about 20 times as many people in the office as we had then, possibly more. Local government is now big business with a substantial budget although Rutland RDC is one of the smaller local authorities.
It is generally recognised that there will be further reorganisation. That should be taken slowly. It probably will be anyway. Previous reorganisations took a long time to come into being. As a noble Lord on this side of the House mentioned earlier, it was about 60 years before there was any kind of reorganisation after the Act of 1888. The Association of District Councils has put forward suggestions about the possible reorganisation of local government in, its consultation paper Closer to the People. That paper met with a good deal of interest. It has put forward some suggestions, though I do not agree with some of them. However, I agree with the general concept that local government should be closer to the people. The only way for that to be achieved is to have unitary authority (I do not like the description much) where the people in the area can find out who is their councillor, what his duties are, where the office is, how action can be taken and how their own contribution, both financial and in the work that they may do for the community, is best done.
As noble Lords know, some of us have been in this House for quite a few years. I believe that a royal commission was constituted by Mr. Crosland when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. I am not sure whether it was called that then, but the royal
1018
commission was set up in that period. Lord Redcliffe-Maud was the chairman and Mr. Derek Senior was also a member of that commission. He produced a minority report of one. He proposed city regions and a number of large unitary authorities based on a selection of the largest cities throughout the country.
That proposal was not acted on because not many people liked it, though it had some measure of support in the Labour Party at that time. Nonetheless, it is not an idea that has ever completely disappeared. I believe that it may be partly under review again in the suggestion which the ADC is putting forward for multi-purpose authorities. It is not suggesting by any means that there should be city regions. It suggests that there could be all-purpose authorities to take the place of the shire counties. One-third or more of the population is now served by multi-purpose or unitary authorities following the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. The larger, more densely populated areas are now administered by one-purpose authorities. I come from East Midlands. In that area there were several county boroughs; Nottingham and Leicester were mentioned. They felt very aggrieved when they lost their borough status. Perhaps those areas could form viable districts with the rural periphery around them. They could well make very good all-purpose authorities. The more rural areas would probably have to be amalgamated into councils with sufficient resources to enable them to operate as multi-purpose units. This is where the difficulties begin.
We have heard about those parts of the country, including Hampshire—which I know quite well, and which is a very beautiful and large county—and other areas where there are differences of opinion on how these authorities might be set up to make the more rural areas more self-governing so that they are not under the influence of large industrial areas. If the change takes place it will have to be done by some form of commission. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, thought that another royal commission might be the best way. If we do that it will take many years before anything happens. Some Members of your Lordships' House may not be around to see it, perhaps me included. If it takes as long as the previous one, I shall not be. Nevertheless, the issue will have to be looked at nationally. It would be nice if the guidelines could be agreed by the main political parties. That is probably too much to hope for.
As politics go, the parties put forward schemes which give them the greatest advantage. Therefore it is to be expected that politics will come into the picture. Different areas will require different solutions. It may be that a scheme can be thought up to give some flexibility to the way the authorities are set up. There are many stories about the late Duke of Beaufort and his objections to being in Avon. But we must get rid of some of these prejudices about change. Parochialism is rife in local government. This must be changed. We must look at it from the national point of view. We must decide how we can provide a service to give the best possible benefit to the largest number of people in the area in question.

1019
The services would have to be organised in a viable way. That is where the difficulty lies. I am not qualified to put forward suggestions as to how that could be done. It would have to be done by experts and by people who had access to data and so on. Basically, each all-purpose authority would, if the authority were on the smaller rather than the larger side (which is what most people would like) have representatives on the boards of regional bodies which administer, for instance, the police and the fire authority. Those authorities could correspond with the area health authorities as they exist at the present time. We could not go back to the days of places such as Rutland and some of the other small councils having their own police forces. We had our own police force once. There was a chief constable, an inspector, two sergeants and 18 constables. That went out of the way and we shall never see it again. We cannot put back the clock. We must look forward to what can be done as we go into the next century.
I am sure that most people would prefer to see education remain a local function if that is possible. Such considerations will come into any review about local government. Perhaps what I have said is a little nebulous. The problems need to be given more thought and consideration, but none is insuperable. It should be possible to find a way of organising local government so that it can take advantage of technology, modern management methods and other facilities which were not available to it when I first became a councillor many years ago.
If that can be done, local government can go forward into the next century with a better prospect of providing services at reasonable cost and with some assurance, it is to be hoped, that it will not then be subject to further reorganisation for quite a long time. What we need in local government is a settled period rather than constant changes and political upheavals when the national government changes from one party to another.
5.56 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, after 25 years in local government as a district and county councillor, I warmly welcome this debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Rippon for initiating it. My husband served for nearly the same length of time as a parish councillor. I believe deeply in the importance of all three levels, which in my view form a bastion of democracy in our country.
There are few people in a village who will not know the name of one parish councillor whom they can contact about their particular problem in local government. The powers of parish councillors are strictly local: sports fields, burial grounds, village greens and allotments; areas which are of importance to the village but not outside. However, they have the incalculable advantage, shared by school governors, of having their ear close to the ground and having a good estimate of the strength of local opinion: literally parish pump politics. The other tiers of local government need to listen to them attentively. Parish councillors need their own small source of finance so
1020
that they can encourage worthwhile local voluntary effort which seeks practically to fulfil village needs, often at very low cost.
District councils have far more powers, cover a wider area and command greater levels of financial resources. District council planning powers have increased enormously over the past decade. I am in favour of carrying out local government duties at the lowest practical level, so that local opinion is genuinely taken into account—perhaps the principle of subsidiarity.
In planning one has to be careful from several points of view. Planning permission for a particular use considerably enhances the value of land. One must guard against favour towards friends or, at the worst, outright corruption. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. From that point of view, the continued division of powers—leaving the local structure plan to the county council, at one remove from local pressure, and also the power to call in an application where that plan may be contravened—is an important democratic check. Otherwise, I am in favour of district council planning powers. Housing and public health are considerable district council responsibilities, best carried out at that level.
The provision of leisure facilities, often centred on a medium-sized local town with a radial transport system, involves other important district council powers. This can provide a focal point for local villages which would be too small to provide their own facilities. I have no experience of service in metropolitan authorities, and so from my point of view they are best left alone. The rest of our countryside, however, is based on well-established market towns, now considerably enlarged with new industrial estates providing local employment through small and medium-sized firms.
People either live on new estates surrounding the towns, or similarly in enlarged villages nearby. District councils based on those towns therefore make sense in democratic terms. People will travel in daily or weekly to work, to shop or to catch a train to the nearest big city. They will know where the district council offices are, and their parish councillors, if they live in the villages, will be insisting on their viewpoint being heard at district council level, if responsible people are involved.
At the level at which they operate—with populations of 100,000 or more—they will be able to pay and attract well qualified and responsible staff with whom councillors can work efficiently. Councillors can make policy decisions but only based on good quality committee papers prepared by professional officers of judgment and experience. High quality people are the most important resource for good local government. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Beloff on that point.
So far, so good. I have not heard that either of the tiers is under threat. However, sadly, I have heard ill-justified threats being made against the existence of county councils. County councils have been working well for more than 100 years. Many of your Lordships, like me, attended at Westminster Abbey about a year ago a most impressive thanksgiving

1021
service for their work over that long period. Once again, from long experience, most people know in which county they live, except possibly those in Humberside or Avon, and the location of County Hall. They would have no such identification with the so-called region.
County councils serve wide enough areas to be responsible for structure plans, road systems, police, fire brigades, waste disposal, the caring services, libraries and—their largest responsibility—schools and further education. Co-ordinating those responsibilities gives them a strong emphasis on the protection of the environment as a whole which continually rises, rightly, on the public agenda, the conservation of historic towns and villages and their buildings, village greens, woodland and farmland, pollution-free coastlines, rivers and streams. All will be affected by the powers at all levels of local government and will need co-ordination.
However, joint committees do not work well—they are nobody's final responsibility—whereas a strong county council can see to it that co-ordinating action is taken. They are large enough to stand up to central government on behalf of the local point of view where that is necessary and to co-operate with it on most occasions; and they are able to bring together perhaps several district councils on a coastal matter, several others on the planning of a local airport or out of town hypermarket or parkway type railway station.
The single market town district is not big enough to carry out that kind of function, and putting several together in a so-called unitary authority is not unitary at all. All the historic roads and lines of communication work against it. Many of us were involved in the last round of local government reorganisation and tried to the best of our ability to make it work well, which by and large it does. There may be need for review and some amendment of powers and boundaries to keep in step with modern developments, but in my view there is no need for root and branch change. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton on that point. Upheaval of that kind results in the proliferation of the worst kind of empire building, it costs extra money and results in loss of morale and general diversion of councillors' and officers' minds from their prime duty of providing necessary services for their local people, efficiently, with due care for their needs, and providing value for money.
There have been many changes recently. What we need now, as many other noble Lords have said, is a period of consolidation to make them work well. Counties accept that far more responsibility is now being given to governors of schools and colleges, and are making the necessary reductions in staff numbers and expenditure to match that. However, there is now a national curriculum, the GCSE is now in action, and in the next few years there will probably be changes in the sixth form curricula to broaden the experience of 16 to 18-year olds. Counties are committed to good education, and are experienced in its provision. In a recently published list showing how areas compare in GCSE grades A to C achievement, only two counties featured among the bottom 30 authorities. Certainly,
1022
in Essex, we promoted parental choice of school, co-operation between schools, colleges and industry and good vocational education, long before they were laid down by government.
Local governors, with their understanding of parental wishes, are important; but they need professional expertise. A well-run county authority will have experienced senior officers and an inspectorate to provide the authoritative advice on how to raise standards of education on which they need to rely, and also the vital in-service training of teachers so that they can keep up with the fast accelerating progress in technology and changes in the curriculum. Volunteers, whether as councillors or governors, need above all to be accountable to the people that they serve. They need to be people of quality who have that natural instinct of public service. They are difficult to find, and they must feel that their calling is an honourable one. They need generous allowances for expenses, but they do not need payment. Mediocre payment will attract mediocre people. In this House noble Lords are prepared to serve voluntarily in the knowledge that their duty is being done, once their expenses are covered. The tradition for voluntary service is part of the genius of our country, but volunteers need to feel appreciated. A period in which the Government positively enhance the status of local government will recruit more councillors of varied experience, judgment and ability.
The CBI has expressed its wish to be more involved in local government. It needs willingly to release those in their fifties who perhaps have reached a plateau in promotion but who nevertheless have considerable commercial and industrial expertise to offer to local government. In this respect, I agree again with my noble friend Lord Wade. There should be more encouragement of women with experience in voluntary caring work to stand for local government. Counties are large enough to pay reasonable salaries to attract well qualified and experienced professional people. The main secret of local government lies in the amicable and efficient interaction between the professionals and the volunteer councillors and governors.
Perhaps I may highlight just one example among many in Essex. We councillors initiated an energy-saving campaign in conjunction with the Treasurer, the County Architect, the Chief Education Officer and others. It resulted in net savings of £26 million over a decade—no mean feat—which enabled that money to be spent on books, teachers and other provision in the local area. County councils have a longstanding reputation for economy and spending in line with government standard spending assessments. In local government all those concerned must always be acutely aware that they are spending other people's money, not their own. They must be constantly accountable to their electorate for the essential nature of that spending. I am therefore behind the principle of the community charge that everyone should be responsible for paying something towards the local government services that they receive.

1023
For a number of years now well over 95 per cent. of households have afforded a television set. I should like to see the community charge set at about the level of a television licence. In that way people will take more interest in the way that their money is spent, and one hopes vote accordingly. Low local government polls are to no one's advantage, and healthy democracy depends on the active participation of the electorate.
The principal criticism of the rating system, as other noble Lords have mentioned, was of the elderly widow on her own in one house, paying the same as the family of perhaps five wage earners in the adjoining exactly similar house. A combination of rates plus an individually based community charge element would be an attractive proposition. The community charge element could finance the district council and the rates the counties, so that the ill-understood precept system could be abolished. Otherwise they could be combined to finance the whole of local government locally. A scheme based on these lines would enhance councillors' accountability to their electorate, which is of fundamental importance, while at the same time allowing for adjustment through ability to pay, because size and quality of property roughly depends on household income.
The Government have a difficult task in considering solutions to the problems raised by this debate. No system will be perfect; but whatever is chosen needs to be capable of working well into the 21st century without further upheaval. It is well to remember that many countries latterly realising the importance of local democracy envy our structure. We must not sacrifice long-term experience to short-term expediency.
Properly financed democratically elected local government is a vital part of our national life, and any changes proposed as a result of this review need to be well thought out, practical, easily understood and capable of attracting wide support so as to recruit high quality officers and members in the future.
6.10 p.m.
Viscount Falmouth: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for introducing the debate, which has a very wide interest in the country. It is only right that such a debate should take place in this Chamber as there are probably more people with experience of local government in this place than anywhere else in the country. It is seldom that I speak in your Lordships' House, but I believe that it is perhaps my duty to do so today on behalf of our ancient counties and their county councils. I am in fact Lord Lieutenant of my own county and that is the reason for my speaking today.
From the proposed review of local government and the statement that "nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in", it would appear that local government has again been thrown into the melting pot as it was in 1974, when so much time, energy and money was spent, and with all the consequent disruption of services to the ratepayers, as they were called in those days.
1024
I speak as a Cornishman living in Cornwall where we have a very good county council and a population of 460,000, which is not large compared to that of large cities. Cornwall is almost an island with its long coast and very long and perhaps stormy history. We are all intensely proud of being Cornish. We are very independent when we can be but, for all that, we have a record of loyalty to Crown and Parliament which is second to none. Now, as a result of this review, we fear that county councils may be abolished in favour of unitary or all-purpose district councils—I emphasis the word "district".
In order to show the importance of county councils, perhaps I may briefly illustrate to noble Lords some of the principles which I have gleaned from my own county's example. In Cornwall we have our problems. We have unemployment which is above the national average; our main industrial employer is announcing job losses; we are perhaps over-reliant on the tourist trade; there are uncertainties in the minds of fishermen; there is a decline in our largest industry, agriculture; and we have just lost our two mines which I believe closed yesterday evening. Those problems are best attacked by the whole county acting through the county council which can provide roads, schools and the allocation of land, and so on, rather than through the very limited and constrictive channels of a district council.
We have six of those district councils in Cornwall, each with an average of about 77,000 people. If they become unitary authorities and the county council is abolished we should presumably need to have, as the noble Lord suggested, various chief officers, six education officers, six librarians, six trading standards officers, six head firemen, six youth officers, and so on. That may be an exaggeration, but if the county council was to be abrogated that would lead to a great deal more expense being involved.
We undertook a cost exercise in the matter. It was found that such a move—that is, getting rid of the county council and putting the power into the hands of the district councils—would add at least £45 per head to the community charge. District councils in the country as a whole vary enormously in size, ranging from 360,000 to under 30,000 people. Presumably, if those unitary councils came into being they would be fixed to serve far larger numbers than that or, indeed, larger than our average population of 77,000, but the rise in overhead costs would be inevitable.
Let us consider for a moment the contrast in budget between a county council and a district council. Our county council budget for the coming year is £276 million as against the average for all six districts in our county which stands at about £10 million each. If districts were to take over county councils on any sort of basis it would be as if the corner shop were taking over Marks & Spencer. District councils, the main roles of which are housing, planning controls and environmental health, are much more concentrated bodies and thus not as near to the public as it might seem in theory. Nearly a quarter of their personnel work in their offices. Indeed, a case could be made for some of their functions being returned to county

1025
councils, especially in the realm of planning controls where the smaller councils may be too near those whom they serve.
Because a county council is large in comparison, it can invite the criticism that it is remote. I do not believe that that is the case. In fact, in my very rural county only 9 per cent. of the staff work in the county hall while the other 90 per cent. work in 554 contact points throughout Cornwall. They work in fire stations, in schools, in surveyors' offices, in weights and measures offices, in road depots, social services and so on. They are spread widely throughout the area.
Many of those services must be run from the centre. Perhaps I may put forward the example of our county youth service. It is run through the county council which does an excellent job. It fully supports the youth in the county who are themselves largely organised on a county basis. Then there is the magistrates' court committee and the training of magistrates. Are such services to be split up or run by joint boards? If so, to whom would they be accountable? Further, who will provide the secretariat? A central county council would have to be invented.
Cornwall is a highly mineralised county. County councils are large enough and experienced enough to take an overall view of the importance of minerals to the local economy and to the country as a whole. It is said that that is likely to overcome the NIMBY symptoms. Let us take Kent as an example. It is a county with which I am closely connected. It plays a most important role in providing such materials as building aggregate and other essential minerals. It is far Letter that the county council with its wider interest should take decisions rather than the smaller districts, even though the Department of the Environment lays down the guidelines and has the ultimate responsibility.
County councils have clout because they are not too small and bear great names to which we are all accustomed. For example, Cornwall has a close link with the European Commission. Last Monday I met the chief executive of my council who had just returned from Brussels where he had been lobbying the authorities. My county is a member of what is called the Atlantic Arc. It is a lobbying group set up to balance the weight of the industrial heart of the mainland of Europe. There are regions in Europe, but that is not the case in this country. Therefore, we have to look to the counties. How could a district carry that weight? There are nearly 332 of them in England and Wales. If unitary councils were introduced, the number would presumably be much reduced; but there would still be great difficulties inherent in this proliferation.
Kent was once called "a little kingdom" by one of its best known writers of this century. It has joined with Nord-Pas de Calais in forming the region Transmanche in order to submit to Brussels a multi- million pound programme for the coastal areas joined by the new tunnel. Could an unknown district do that or stand up to British Rail and Whitehall and get it right for Kent over the tunnel rail link?
1026
My final and most important point is that a county council attracts a high calibre of councillor drawn from all political parties and from all walks of life, with a wide outlook and much experience; and it has an excellent staff. Their incentive is to serve that old and famous institution —the county, the shire—with pride in its success and devotion to its continuing welfare, with perhaps an element of competition with its neighbours.
A county council presents the face of a county and in England we have, over the centuries, in the words of a recent song:
"become accustomed to her face".
Like Professor Higgins, we like and love it. Those are thoughts that I hope are shared by many noble Lords who come from the counties.
I pass from the general argument to the particular. I fear that my county might go like Pembrokeshire, which has been divided into two districts and lost in Dyfed. Pembrokeshire is a smaller county than ours. Those are justifiable fears. Do away with our county council and as night follows day our county will also be done away with. To abolish Cornwall as a county in its own right would deny the people who live there their identity, and that would never be acceptable to Cornishmen.
In any review, it would be wrong of the central authority (your Lordships' House and another place) to disregard those strong local feelings which I am sure are shared by all counties. Rather should we harness those old and inherent feelings of loyalty and service to provide sensible local government with a vision for the future.
6.22 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, we have difficulty in Britain making alterations to constitutional matters. First, there is no provision in our unwritten constitution for doing so. We should probably have to rely upon a referendum and massive all-party support to make major changes which would be unlikely to be reversed.
We know the fate of the attempt gently to reform the House of Lords some 15 or more years ago: it was sabotaged by Michael Foot and Enoch Powell, although there had been substantial agreement. Nevertheless, gradual changes must be made in other areas to meet changing external conditions. It is interesting to reflect that when the Conservatives came to power 10 years ago they were all in favour of delegating more responsibility to local government; but that is what they have not done. Why?
The difficulty was that some local authorities turned out to be run by a bunch of extremists. Their consequent financial mismanagement and other extraordinary malpractices created an intolerable situation—completely out of touch with and repugnant to the electorate as a whole. Why did that happen in a system which worked tolerably well in the past? Mr. Herbert Morrison prided himself on introducing party politics into local government. It may have brightened up council chamber discussions initially, but something else rapidly happened. Many councillors ceased to take democratic account of the

1027
people they were supposed to represent. The party view, whether or not it was appropriate to local circumstances, became the one thing that mattered and had to be followed.
Many of those who would otherwise be willing to serve as councillors have been deterred because it would interfere with their professional or other commitments. Thus it has come about in some areas that a hard core of those standing on a party ticket may be people inordinately dedicated to the views of the far Right or far Left, or they may be power seekers. Today, in many areas candidates are elected solely on a party ticket. Few electors know anything about them, have any contact with them afterwards or even remember their names once they are elected. I draw two conclusions.
First, we should try to reverse the extreme importance of party politics at the election stage and in the council chamber. We should try to reintroduce the principle of a candidate's selection being dependent upon his ability to represent his local community in a variety of ways. The ideal local councillor—there are some of many political colours in the area in which I live—is someone who is well-known and trusted by everyone in the locality. Candidates' names should not be listed under party headings; there should be indicated after their names and in brackets only their party preference. That of course would raise the vital question of how, and by whom, candidates are vetted, if at all.
The voting turnout in Britain is poor. It averages about 40 per cent. Many people, except again the highly motivated, or those who know the candidate, are not sufficiently interested to vote. We should consider following the Australian example and impose a fine, or some deterrent, upon those not voting. We should try harder to provide full details of each candidate through the local newspaper and by other means.
I now come to what I and my party consider the best way to improve the situation. Your Lordships will have guessed the answer—proportional representation. I am at least willing to listen to arguments as to why we should not adopt that system for national elections. I have yet to hear good arguments against its use for local government. We talk about democracy and government by the people's duly elected representatives. I have heard that said more than once today. In practice that does not give a fair representation of the electorate. I shall not bore your Lordships with more than one example. At Lincoln in 1988, Conservative voters totalled 39 per cent. and Labour voters 60 per cent. of the poll. One seat was gained by the Conservatives and 10 by Labour. There have been many similar results.
Proportional representation is more crucial in local elections than in national elections because the present system enables extremists to take over local government relatively easily, the selection of candidates being undertaken only by a dedicated local political party. We are all aware of startling events and extraordinary behaviour in certain of our well-known northern cities. They are practices which many of us
1028
find repugnant. Rate-capping and the unfortunate poll tax were an attempt to assert control by central government. But that was not the way to cure the problem or to promote greater delegation to local authorities, all of which have their individual needs and problems.
I advocate proportional representation in local government. It will help to elect those who genuinely follow the electors' interests. It will help to prevent extremists and those unrepresentative of the electorate's views from taking over. It may be sour to ask how we can go on talking about the duly elected representatives purporting to represent the views of the electorate in our democracy. I hope that this model is not exportable to countries trying to set up a democratic system. I see a profound paradox when the elected representatives neither represent the views of the electorate nor, even when appropriate, follow them.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount that we need to try to find ways of making the provision of services in local government less political. Some of what I have to say may perhaps appeal to him. I am not sure whether I go along with his suggestion of proportional representation although my mind is by no means closed to it.
In writing to me, as it has written to many noble Lords, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities points out that this debate provides the first major parliamentary opportunity to put forward some of the positive arguments for a healthy system of local government. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he thought it odd that this opportunity should be offered in Conservative Back-Bench time today. I believe that the AMA is right: the debate is a major opportunity which your Lordships are taking with relish. I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for the trouble he took and the originality of the ideas which he included in his opening remarks.
It seems to me particularly sad that out of the 26 speakers today only four have come from the Labour Benches. Noble Lords on our side of the House are often accused by the Opposition of not playing a big enough part in debates. Today perhaps the boot is on the other foot and it is a little sad that so few have spoken. Perhaps I may return to that in a moment because it is symbolic of some of our problems.
During the passage through Parliament of the legislation introducing the community charge, I for one took the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, that local government has been working less and less well over the years. It is coming into increasing disrepute with the public and I felt that unless something were done it would simply wither away.
It seemed to me that the best chance of ensuring local government's survival and a restoration of public confidence was a change in its system of finance. Of all the possibilities—and all had disadvantages—the one most to be preferred was a system which involved

1029
every citizen contributing an amount reasonable for him or her which gave everyone a stake in ensuring the competence of his or her own council and the ability to compare its competence with that of other councils.
It was clear at that time that people who had hitherto paid nothing would not like to start paying. It was clear that to collect money from everybody would cost more and be more difficult than simply collecting from the 40 per cent. of the population who were householders paying rates. It was obvious that any entirely new system would need adjusting and refining as time went on.
There was and still is in my view nothing wrong with the basic idea of the community charge. Had local councils set reasonable levels of charge; had they operated the rebate system effectively; had they arranged proper user-friendly and efficient means of collection; had they encouraged people to pay and co-operated with central government in refining the system as it went along, by now that system would be beginning to work. Local government's future would be secure.
However, what has happened? The right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seemed to suggest that what had gone wrong had been the fault almost entirely of this Conservative Government. In my view, many local government and central government politicians have treated the charge to far too great an extent as a party political opportunity. Numbers of MPs and councillors have advised people not to pay. A sizeable number themselves have not paid. Councils —wittingly or unwittingly—have arrived at extraordinary systems of collection. For example, my own council issues people who qualify for a rebate with a complete new book of vouchers for payment every time their financial circumstances change. A lady pensioner living on her own near me now has 46 books piled up and is worried stiff over what to do about them.
The system of four-yearly election is being badly abused. In Scotland, for example, in spite of additional Scottish Office funds calculated to keep increases in the charges below inflation this year, Edinburgh, where the community charge is in any case the highest in Scotland, has estimated that the charge will be increased by 33.3 per cent. Scotland's average increase is 29.3 per cent. We are told that in Glasgow an extra £97 will be added to the charge, of which £62 is due to non-payment by citizens. If there were a yearly election in Scotland, I doubt that this would have happened. That is where we are.
What should happen now? Should we continue to refine the system we have and improve the ways in which we collect the charges, making them more user-friendly? Perhaps we should transfer the funding of some: services to central government, as some noble Lords have suggested. Should we allow time for the public to decide for themselves the merit or otherwise of the new system and of their council's performance in operating it? In passing, I should say that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was absolutely right. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will shake his head, but in my view it was right to suggest
1030
that people in Scotland are beginning to accept the community charge. Certainly in my part of the country they were doing so until England came into the system and the whole row began all over again and trouble started in Scotland.
Should we continue to refine the system of the community charge? Or should we say, "Right, let's accept that we don't want to continue up that road", and start again with a new system of finance? What about the structure? As local councils become more and more enablers and ensurers of quality than direct providers of services, and as schools realise the great advantage of local financial management, it may well be that the structures should change. Much has been said about that by other noble Lords and I shall not comment further.
I do not know, nor do I intend to suggest detailed answers to these questions at this stage. However, anyone who honestly believes that there is one easy way which fits all the criteria perfectly has forgotten those who, like my noble friend, Lord Bellwin, have struggled with the problem for 25 years. So far they have found that an easy solution does not exist. I do not believe that a Royal Commission would find new answers that successive governments and committees have already failed to find.
However, I wish to make one suggestion, half of which has already been suggested. I regard it as extremely important and I very much hope that noble Lords winding up from the Opposition Front Benches and my noble friend from the Government Front Bench will comment on it. The Association of County Councils seems to accept the need for cross-party agreement on changes that we make in local government. That association wrote to me expressing the view that local government should be nurtured and encouraged by both Parliament and Government. It further stated that too much central control weakens local government and there is therefore a need:
"to enshrine the constitutional role and value of local government in a set of agreed principles".
I am not sure whether I would go as far as that. However, I believe that cross-party agreement is necessary if a system is to be evolved, in the short term or in the longer term—whether it is a refinement of the present system or a new system—which can be backed by the government of the day, irrespective of their political hue. Cross-party agreement is also necessary if we are to have a system which will produce councils that work within the overall economic strategy set by the government of the day—that is unavoidable because of the high proportion of public expenditure which is spent through local government—and if we are to have a system in which local government services are not damaged by the constant political warfare with which we are now all too familiar. The role of local government and, above all, its system of finance, must have cross-party acceptance and commitment.
If it turns out that such agreement and acceptance are not forthcoming, I suggest there is only one answer in the public interest. The best way forward for the

1031
users of local government services is for local government to be funded 100 per cent. by the taxpayer; for each council to receive a block grant funded from income and corporation tax from central government and for local councillors to be answerable to their electorate not for the amount of their total spending but for the way they allocate that spending between services. They should, above all, be answerable for the quality of the services they cause to be delivered.
I agree with the local government associations that it would be better for local councils to raise part of the money they spend. However, we must remember that local government exists primarily to deliver services. I believe the simple block grant would be preferable if the political parties cannot agree to accept a system, and if there is continuing dispute about the system and misuse of it, and that leads to vital services being damaged—that has occurred in recent years—and to totally unreasonable charges being levied on individual citizens. I have not been able to discover what rise in income and corporation tax that would represent because of the fact that corporation tax is included in the figure.
I hope that a response to that suggestion will come from both Front Benches. My noble friend Lord Beloff referred to the series of myths which prevail in local government about the glories of the system and our great aspirations. I believe that those aspirations will not be realised unless we obtain cross-party agreement. I hope that noble Lords will take my suggestion seriously.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, like others who have spoken, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rippon for initiating the debate. I do not say that as a formal courtesy but because I found myself in almost total agreement with him. I was delighted to hear him put forward his views with far greater authority and eloquence than I am able to do.
The temptation to reform and restructure local government is one which most governments in recent years have seemed unable to resist. The reasons are, I suppose, first that the process enables the party in power to indulge in a bit of useful gerrymandering disguised as constructive reform. Secondly, local government, like education, is a subject about which practically every Member of both Houses of Parliament has strong views based upon some personal knowledge. That has been the case in this debate.
Thirdly, the problems arising in local government are usually of a scale—this is not the case with foreign policy or macro-economics—that most people can understand and consider capable of solution. Finally, the cry "Reform local government" enables central government to offload some of the responsibility for its own mistakes on to the shoulders of the men and women who serve the community in county, district and parish.
1032
There have been grand commissions, such as the one chaired by the late Lord Redcliffe-Maud. There have been great new Acts of Parliament. We have abolished the GLC, making London the only capital city in Europe, and perhaps in the world, which has no central administration. We have reformed local finance by substituting the community charge for the rating system with the social, financial and administrative consequences with which your Lordships are all familiar. Perhaps I should say at this point that the concept of accountability is an absolute myth. Perhaps I shall return to that point later. The outcome of all that effort is that, either in this Parliament or in the next, there will be another attempt by Parliament at Westminster to reform and restructure the local government of this country.
I have never had more than a walking on part in local government. My role consisted mainly of processing up and down the High Street in Colchester behind the Mayor and the town mace on municipal occasions. Local government in this country, whether in county, city, borough or parish, has not been the creation of Acts of Parliament, or Royal Commissions although there have been many of them. It has grown and been adapted over 1,000 years and more to deal with the intimate problems of families and people who live in the great and small communities of Britain. It never has and never will match up to all the criteria which professors of government, management consultants or the mandarins in Whitehall departments believe at any particular time to be right.
Local government will always have anomalies and occasional instances of corruption. However, there are remarkably few cases of corruption considering the opportunities and temptations that exist. There will always be councils which outrage the political susceptibilities of the party in power and spend money on eccentric purposes. As local government by its very nature reflects the varied aspirations of different political interests and the needs of communities ranging from great industrial cities to tiny villages, it cannot be constrained into a neat, tidy administrative pattern. I totally disagree with the point the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, made when he proposed that we should have another grand commission. That is exactly what I would have expected from someone who has had long experience and a distinguished record in Whitehall.
What is needed is not the restructuring of our present system but a piecemeal attempt to put right some of the mistakes which earlier attempts at reform have made. The first and most obvious step is to get rid of the poll tax and to substitute for it a tax perhaps based on property that has some relevance to individual wealth. In my personal view the rating system produced just as much accountability on the part of councils as the poll tax could ever achieve. In the minds of the electorate that kind of issue is not the paramount one. During the past few years local government has become increasingly based upon the division between parties. It is party issues, both locally and in the country generally, that really decide how people vote at local elections.

1033
The next thing to do is to provide some form of central administration for London. That would not necessarily involve revival of the GLC. It might consist of representatives elected on a collegiate basis by the London boroughs. Today London is a mess. A central co-ordinating authority is needed to cover among other things transport, certain aspects of special education, cultural amenities and planning.
What the next reforming spasm that we go through should not do—and here I follow very much my noble friends Lady Platt of Writtle and Lord Falmouth and many others—is to reconstruct the present system of two-tier local government by abolishing the county councils. Some boundaries may have to change, and it may be worth reverting to older terminology in order to make my noble friend feel more happy about where he was born. But any root and branch upheaval will not only be costly, as it was last time. It will also leave, as happened in London, an administrative vacuum in respect of certain activities which the district councils cannot properly fill, if only due to the pressures imposed on elected district councillors.
What is most important is that any reform should not result in increased powers for central government. I hope that my noble friend the Minister, when she replies, will assure your Lordships that the Government do not seek in any way to extend, by any reform that they intend to undertake, the powers of any department of state at the expense of the local authorities.
If the thoughts I have tried to present to the House have any value, they are addressed not only to the present Government but to whatever government comes to power after the next election. Speaking as an elector in what was until recently known by its Anglo-Saxon name of the Winstree Hundred, now part of the even older borough of Colchester, I hope that this and future governments will remember that local government is not only more deep-rooted in the political soil of Britain but is far more closely entwined in the everyday life of ordinary people than anything in Parliament or in Whitehall. It should not be dug up every few years by some Royal Commission or by some enthusiastic Secretary of State. What is needed is that it should be occasionally pruned and fertilised with adequate finance.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Digby: My Lords, in the 27 years since I joined your Lordships' House your Lordships have debated local government with monotonous regularity, but I must wonder whether the legislation that we have passed has in fact improved local government. The major reorganisation of 1973 fell between two governments. Originally based on the Maud Report, under a Labour government we would have had large unitary authorities which would, of course, have been effective. But under a Conservative government it was pointed out, perhaps quite rightly, that democracy would be too far from the people, and that there should be a second tier of district councils.
This resulted in all the costs of change and none of the financial advantages. Also, coming at a moment of
1034
high inflation, it increased the cost of running local services. But just because we got it wrong then there is no reason to reorganise again. I do not believe that local government is perfect at present, nor cost effective, but I am quite sure that anything that we put in its place, so far as structure is concerned, will increase rather than decrease the cost. The 1973 reorganisation concentrated on structure rather than on finance, and I suggest that this reorganisation should concentrate on finance and leave the structure unchanged. The present structure works, even if it is not perfect, so I must beg the Government to leave councils to concentrate on improving their services rather than face the problems and counter-productive effects of change.
Views on local government are inevitably influenced by one's own knowledge and experience. I was a member of Dorset County Council for many years and its vice-chairman for four. I am taking part in this debate not to represent any particular interest but because I have a strong personal interest in our system of local government, and in particular the provision of services within Dorset. Dorset, apart from being uniquely beautiful and a wonderful place to live, is typical of most English counties as it contains both heavily populated and rural communities. As a unit of government it has really been remarkably successful.
It is successful because, first, it is an organisation that draws upon the tradition and history of a shire county, and is one with which most people in Dorset can readily identify. I do not believe that units of government can be decided solely on theoretical criteria, and it is terribly important that local government organisations should be a natural focus for communities. Secondly, Dorset County Council is run on sound business lines, provides efficient and cost-effective services and, almost uniquely for a county council, is debt free.
I have some experience in running businesses and I believe that Dorset's success is attributable to the fact that it is well led by members and is sufficiently large to recruit highly competent managers. The ability to provide cost-effective services, education, transport, and so on, which not only meet the needs of rural and urban areas but also achieve economy of scale, calls for high management flexibility and competence. Thirdly, Dorset County Council is also successful because it has built productive partnerships with a variety of bodies within the private sector—voluntary organisations as well as the smaller districts and parishes within its area.
Turning specifically to the current debate on education and particularly to assertions that education could easily be transferred to district councils or even to the central Civil Service, I have to say that it is, of course, right to delegate more responsibility to schools and governors. Dorset wholeheartedly accepts the principles of local management of schools and is successfully implementing them. It would, however, be unthinkable if, say, decisions about the funding and provision of primary schools in Dorset were to be made by Civil Servants in Whitehall. People within Dorset know that the county

1035
council, with members drawn from differing communities representing a wide-cross section of interests, is the best unit of government to make these types of decision.
It will be a sad loss if we lose sight of the virtues of county government, which are to be found not only in Dorset but elsewhere. We should certainly not be contemplating the replacement of highly efficient and effective county government with any organisations that are smaller in size, smaller in outlook, and not equipped to respond strategically to the varying needs of communities. So my message is simple. Any tinkering with structure will be counter-productive. Let us just look at the financial side and not the structure of local government.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, I believe it is quite clear that any decisions to change the present structure and funding of local government will be based largely on political considerations. The increasing demands that local authorities make on our total national resources, and the extent to which their functions affect the quality of life of the individuals who make up the communities they represent, render this inevitable. At the same time, however, we are entitled to expect that, before any reforms are instituted, full consideration should be given to what effects the changes are likely to have on the efficiency of the services involved and on their practical delivery on the ground.
I doubt very much whether that has always been the case when local government change has occurred in the past, and I am left wondering whether some of the reforms that are being rehearsed at the present time have yet been properly examined from this point of view, certainly as regards the service with which I am most familiar. I hope your Lordships will permit me to concentrate on that service, though that may be a rather narrow approach to this debate.
History tells us that from Anglo-Saxon times policing in England and Wales has been the responsibility of local communities and it was no accident, when the new policing arrangements pioneered by Peel in London in 1829 were extended to the provinces, that rather than setting up a national police force it was to the newly created municipal boroughs, and later the new county councils, that the responsibility for maintaining law and order was passed.
Home Office involvement—in other words, government involvement—came in 1856 when it became necessary to supplement local rate income with government funding. For the first time, therefore, grant in aid for police purposes was introduced and with it the tripartite system embracing police authorities, Home Secretary and chief constables came into existence.
I believe that this locally based system with shared responsibilities, which enables complete impartiality to be taken by police in operational matters, has been one of the fundamental strengths of our policing
1036
arrangements over the years and that any moves to replace it with a national system should be strongly opposed.
Effective and democratic policing is dependent on this partnership and public support for the police—so essential in our system—depends upon a strong local influence being exercised. The Royal Commission of 1962, chaired by the right honourable Sir Henry Willink, with one dissenting member, recommended its continuance subject to a strengthened Home Office involvement and the amalgamation of some of the smaller forces.
Today others take a different view. For example, the Home Affairs Committee of another place, in its seventh report in July last year, regarded our present arrangements as being,
"essentially designed in a Victorian Britain and last seriously reviewed a generation ago when society and the world were very different."
The committee urged the Government to,
"come forward with White Paper proposals for a police structure for Britain which will suit the needs of the 21st century."
It needs to be borne in mind that this recommendation was made against a background of an examination of the arrangements for international co-operation in matters of crime. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, that there may well be a need for some form of national unit to handle terrorism, major frauds, national security and perhaps drugs. But these matters form only a very small part of the whole crime picture which in total is estimated to take up only about one-third of total police activity with the remainder being directed to traffic, public order and other social service type incidents, all of which call for a local rather than a national response.
Publicity has been given recently to proposals for local government reform; be it by way of abolishing county councils in favour of all-purpose district councils—a view which I believe both major parties share—the introduction of regional government, or the transfer to central government of the total funding of the police perhaps with education and fire services as we understand is being canvassed in the Government's review of the community charge. All that brings into question the form of our present police arrangements and the relationship between the three partners currently involved.
I fear the possibility that, as with the reforms of 1974, we shall see the practicalities of policing ignored when local government reforms are being considered, leaving that service to be "fitted in" in some way to any new structure as may be administratively convenient.
In 1974 that approach led, on the one hand, to the formation of some very large, somewhat isolated, forces very difficult to integrate with the other local personal services—such as housing, education and leisure, which are so necessary for successful crime reduction measures—and, on the other hand, to the recreation of at least one police force which was smaller than it was some six years earlier when it was felt necessary in the interests of efficiency compulsorily to amalgamate it with its neighbour.

1037
The opportunity was there in 1986 to rectify the position, but it was never taken; again, I believe, on the ground of administrative convenience. Policing deserves better than that and I am sure your Lordships will agree that the only criteria for change should be greater efficiency and proper accountability.
I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will tell us today, first, whether or not serious consideration is being given to changing the present basis of government funding which, if implemented, could only lead to more central control on the premise that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Secondly, I hope that she can confirm that there will be no reform of the present tripartite system until all the issues have been comprehensively, impartially and publicly examined by a body with the status and authority of perhaps a Royal Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, said, these matters are too important to be decided solely by civil servants or party political machines.
I conclude by quoting a passage which I came across come time ago. I regret that I cannot now trace the reference. It reads:
"Local government"—
and perhaps I could substitute for that "local policing"—
"always has one big advantage. It is closer to reality and to ordinary people. Whitehall can become a thickly populated and engrossing world of its own, bounded by the suburban train and the newspaper at each end of the day. Local authorities are much more exposed to the public whom their decisions affect. This does not necessarily make their decisions better, but it does add a dimension from the real world to the conditions of their work."
7.7 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I wish simply to stress the importance of the environmental functions of county councils, especially in the field of planning. It would be extremely unfortunate if, in attempting to improve other aspects of local authority performance, we caused an adverse effect on activities that are currently being carried out extremely successfully at county level.
It seems to me that we often forget the importance of the strategic level of planning when looking after the environment of our towns, cities and countryside. On a day-to-day basis, development control decisions are made by district councils and this is the planning with which most of us come into contact. But district councils work within a framework set by county councils who prepare county structure plans setting out the strategic policies for a whole county.

County structure plans ask and answer the crucially important questions: How much development is needed? How many houses should be built and where should they go? Where is the best agricultural land and where is the most beautiful countryside? Structure plans take into account all these considerations while leaving day-to-day decisions to district councils. But if the strategic goals were not firmly set, there would be endless controversy over the location and amount of development. It is this important strategic view that would suffer if, as suggested by some, the role of the counties was dispensed with or, at the very least, weakened. I hope that that will not happen.
1038
Weakening of the role of county councils would be particularly ironic, since the Government themselves have only recently re-emphasised the importance of the county tier of planning. Although they had proposed to abolish county structure plans, replacing them with weak county statements, that decision was reversed in the environment White Paper in September last year, when the Government announced that they would retain statutory county structure plans.
In doing so, the Government recognised that there was a need for firm strategic planning which would establish a framework designed to guide the detailed decisions of district councils, on the one hand, and feed upwards into the preparation of the new regional tier of planning guidance, on the other.
That decision was confirmed in the Planning and Compensation Bill which gives a central role to county structure plans in the development plan system. I heartily endorse it. It has been said that the county level of planning is less important now that the Government are moving forward on the provision of regional planning guidance. I disagree. Regional planning is only likely to work because we have a strong county planning system and counties that are prepared to work together to develop consistent policies for their region.
Serplan, the most sophisticated regional forum, works because counties in the South East believe that it is useful to co-operate and can agree on a common basis for doing so. Imagine trying to achieve the same result with literally dozens of district councils! It may be a long time before the tentative efforts that we are making towards regional planning come to fruition. But we must also recognise that in some parts of the country there is very little sense of regional coherence. I do not believe that regional planning can or should replace county planning, although no doubt it will be a very useful way of dealing with issues that are currently too large or complex to be handled by one county —for example, a new airport or a motorway.
Counties inspire a great sense of place among the public. The public know where they are and feel greatly attached to them. Counties are also an important and useful level at which to plan; they are neither too remote from what is happening on the ground, nor too close to the ground, with all the problems of parochialism which may result. I make the plea that we do not embark on another round of local government reform without being very clear that the changes can be justified. The upheavals of 1974 are still present in many minds and the past few years have been profoundly unsettling for county planning. Certainly so far as the county planning system goes, I do not believe that there is a case for changing the structure of local government. But whatever other changes may be introduced, county planning at least should be allowed to remain intact.
7.12 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, is most opportune. It calls attention to the need to review the structure of

1039
local government. We should examine most carefully the essential nature of local government before we reach conclusions.
Local authority associations see all too clearly the dangers of instant solutions and immediate proposals for a new structural system of local government. They would wish to participate in any process of inquiry which may be required to examine that very complex problem. But before diving in at the deep end, does there need to be a wholesale reform or can local government adapt to future needs by devolution? That was a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Digby, and those who say that education should be removed from local government because it will reduce the pressure on the community charge. No coherent nationwide system is proposed from those quarters as to how the service is to be managed. The disappearance of the local education authority could be marked by the creation of an alternative bureaucracy, accountable only to the Secretary of State for Education. It is very difficult to see how that could be flexible and responsive to local needs.
I had intended to speak about the police service. However, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, explained so well the function of the police service that I can just add that the chief constable and his officers are directly answerable to the public that they serve. A national police service would remove that valuable public safeguard because it is very difficult to see how the Home Secretary could be an adequate substitute for that local role. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, agrees with that idea.
Those are just some examples, but I hope that the point is vividly made that local government has an important role in our life and is best equipped to take decisions on behalf of local people. It is a strange fact that, as Europe devolves power from the centre, the Government of the United Kingdom become more centralised. These issues are of extraordinary importance and go beyond the shallow interests of self-preservation or aggrandisement of county councils, or indeed district councils.
We are speaking about local government itself and the right of local people to take their own decisions and run their own affairs with accountability to the electorate and the public that they serve. The issue is one of great complexity. Changes should only be made after proposals have been thoroughly tested by a most searching inquiry. I am apprehensive that we have not reached the position where the need for inquiry has been properly understood.
I should like to talk for a few moments about county government and regional aspects, in which I can claim some special knowledge that I believe has general application. The County of Hampshire is the county that I know best—and indeed its county council. I was the chairman of its planning committee, chairman of its countryside committee and for some time chairman of both the policy and resources committee and the county council at the same time. Hampshire has a strong identity with its people by its
1040
history and tradition and there is no difficulty in asserting its personality. Like most counties, Hampshire is not an artificial creation. The local ties are obvious. Winchester does not need to find for itself a role as the seat of county government; that has been astonishingly obvious since the time of William the Conqueror.
The county council provides its statutory services, which are no different from those of other county councils. But it is able to do more than that. It can operate as a leader for enhancing the environment of the county—for example, by far-sighted land purchase policies, which have been operating for many years, buying land for public enjoyment and conservation. Substantial sums of money have been devoted to urban regeneration in the great cities of the county, to improve unsatisfactory areas for which other funds are not available, and it has led the country in successful town development schemes such as at Basingstoke and Andover. At this point I must pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, and the help that we received from London when she was in charge of that responsibility.
County councils are expert at working with one another to provide a regional dimension to local government. I shall give two examples. The first is a long-standing one, having taken place for about 30 years. The second is much more recent; indeed it has taken place only during the past 30 days. Town and country planning around London is achieved by the counties with their structure plans, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, explained, and by the districts with their local plans. But the central unifying force is provided by the counties themselves in a voluntary combination.
Strategic planning for areas as large as counties makes sense only if the regional dimension can be included. That is particularly imperative in London and the South-East. The counties, together with London, established what is now known as Serplan, which prepares regional statements of planning policies for agreement by the Secretary of State for the Environment. That work has been highly regarded for many years under the chairmanship of the noble Lords, Lord Nugent, and Lord Sandford. I hope, because I am the present chairman of Serplan, that it will continue to be so regarded.
I am convinced that the present county council structure is very well suited for that vital role. It would be extremely difficult to find an alternative as substitute. Indeed, I go so far as to say that without county councils it would be an impossible task. I believe that my officers in Serplan support my views.
My second example of county council initiative is in the area of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as a result of which the Department of the Environment urged the establishment of voluntary waste regulation committees to define regional policies for the management of waste and avoidance of pollution. Within a few weeks of the Act becoming law, the South East counties explored, defined and established their own voluntary committee which has now started work. The Department of the Environment asked for proposals to be completed by 1st April. I am pleased

1041
to say that the regulation committee is already in operation. This example of rapid joint working needs to be borne in mind by those who seek to establish regional tiers of government. Do we know what regional government means? What national government will give their powers away to a regional government?
I am sceptical. I believe that the answer is none. Does regional government mean taking powers away from the local authorities? I fear that the answer is more likely to be yes because of the centralising tendencies of all governments. My view is that regional government is unnecessary and that those who promote it must think more deeply about the consequences of their proposals before they merit serious consideration.
The Association of District Councils seeks the abolition of county councils. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, refer to "some" county councils. From my experience, to speak of more than 300 districts taking over the responsibilities of the county councils is, with all due respect, absurd. Smaller districts cannot possibly take on county responsibilities. What will happen? They will find themselves swallowed up in this greater council or that greater metropolitan area. To speak of a return—as one noble Lord mentioned—of old county boroughs is rather strange. Some simply would not have the resources to provide the services required. In 1974 when e county boroughs were abolished substantial areas of their responsibility were transferred to the new health and water authorities.
Perhaps I may refer to finance. There are some simple points that I should like to make. It is obvious that the community charge does not stand the test of public acceptability. Some radical change will have to be made. However, to comment in advance of specific proposals from the Government is difficult. At the same time it may be worth stating some criteria of importance which any new form of taxation should fulfil.
Any local authority must be directly accountable to the people from whom it levies its tax. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, there is no doubt that there is still confusion among the general public as to where payment must go—to the county council or to the district council. The demand for payment therefore should be unequivocal. The present system of payment to an anonymous collection fund is difficult for anyone to understand. There is widespread concern about the cost of collection of the community charge and—and this is important—the unfair burden placed on those who pay by those who choose not to pay. The losses on collection are too high and any new system must overcome that problem. The requirement for any new local tax must include the criteria of accountability by the taxing authority, ease of collection and basic fairness.
What should be put in place of a community charge? Let us take as our starting point the fact that a simple return to rates is not a feasible proposition because of the reasons that led to its abolition in the first place. The community charge cannot be retained
1042
in its present form because of unacceptability. In 1973 when I was a member of Hampshire County Council's Finance Committee we considered a Department of the Environment consultation paper on local government finance. It concluded that it was not appropriate to introduce any new system of local taxes. In those days some of us compared our single rating system with combined systems of local taxation operating elsewhere in the world and thought that combined systems might have some advantage.
The choice falls between a system of local sales tax, a local income tax or a modified property tax. I do not advocate a local sales tax because I believe that it would he haphazard in operation and would not pass the accountability test. To pay a sales tax on a loaf of bread as a contribution towards local services does not pass any test of credibility. Local income tax is practicable; but because it confuses local and central taxation collection processes, it is unsatisfactory from the accountability viewpoint. The role of central and local government would undeniably become blurred.
The proposition that any tax burden should be borne by the majority of people and that adequate regard is paid to their ability to pay is important. I am therefore attracted to a middle course which has been advocated by other noble Lords. We have the administrative means to combine the old rating system, suitably modified and simplified, with the community charge system. A household would contribute directly to its own local authority a fixed sum determined by reference to the value of the house and an additional payment for each adult wage earner in the house. Only one bill would need to be sent for each household, thus reducing the cost of collection.
The uniform business rate should be abolished. There is no sense of accountability in it. A contribution to a pool for nationwide distribution destroys any real link between the business community and its local authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said. Any new taxation system should ensure that business rates are paid direct to the local authority with some safeguards to protect against profligate authority.
I am not attracted to the idea that the local taxation system should have some value or volume predetermined by central government. The level of services provided locally must take account of local circumstances. While capping to prevent excessive expenditure is one thing, central direction of all levels of local expenditure is quite another.
The questions of form, finance and functions of local government are not discrete one from the other, but need to be satisfied at the same time. Form and function dictate finance; and finance and its collection bears upon both form and function. If there were simple answers, they would have been found before. However, because the answers are not obvious, it will be well worth our time proceeding with a searching inquiry.
I realise that in proffering these points for your Lordships' consideration, my anxiety to point out the case for a searching inquiry, and my enthusiasm for

1043
asserting the strengths of the county system of government, I may be understood to be putting a case for no change in our present two-tier system. I hasten to say that that is not my view. We need to examine all the possibilities without having—this is important—an unnecessarily short timescale for an exercise of such complexity. I was attracted to the idea of a royal commission. That was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, but rather shot down by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I hope that we shall have a Green Paper from the Secretary of State. All options need to be fairly stated so that we can see, for example, whether there needs to be a uniform answer for England or Wales, or whether there is a role for county councils to be unitary authorities. I do not propose answers today because I do not believe that there are or should be instant solutions.
7.30. p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Rippon has raised this subject. Many Members of the House have an interest in and a knowledge of it. I am pleased that we are discussing the review of local government. Review is good, but reform is not necessarily needed nor desirable at this time. Most of my experience is in London at local and regional government levels. I do not consider that I can speak on matters outside that area.
No matter how important we consider the discussion—and I attached great weight to it—there is no doubt that the average resident views local government in terms of whether his bins are emptied, the streets are cleaned, the street lighting is good and safe and the footpaths are sound. I have found that, no matter how important an issue is raised with local residents, they always return to those basic essentials and what will be done for them. They may be interested in a planning matter if it affects them immediately or if a new system being introduced into their area is relevant to them. However, most people think of their local authority in terms of how it affects their everyday lives. Bodies such as your Lordships' House are therefore required to examine the wider concepts and the ways in which the situation can be improved.
Yesterday when I was having a casual discussion with my noble friend Lady Carnegy I was tempted by the idea of all funding coming from central government. It appeared to be an easy option; no one need worry because the money would be available according to need. However, overnight I have given considerable thought to the idea. I now believe that it is particularly unsatisfactory to have all the duties imposed on local authorities by statute. If funding were imposed in the same way all the representatives of local authorities would be reduced to being agents of the Government. It would take away all the good and desirable aspects of locally-elected authorities.
Local government must be able to raise money and therefore we return to the same old problem of how to collect it. A property tax is simple to collect but not so simple to assess. We had an excellent system of rating
1044
valuation courts with great expertise. That continues to exist and now determines community charge issues. The rating valuation lists have been retained in connection with water rates and so forth, but they need to be updated. Some areas that were rated low on a notional 1973 rent are now fashionable and expensive.
I have read in the press a suggestion that property tax should be based on square footage. That system would not be entirely fair either. Someone living in a great barn of a place, totally unmodernised, without a lift and costing a great deal to heat might be disadvantaged when compared with someone living in a smaller, practical, well-insulated home. Therefore, a system based on square footage is not a total answer.
It has been suggested that rating valuation courts should be capable of assessing capital values. It is an interesting point but the difficulty is that capital values rise and fall. I have seen examples of people selling semi-detached houses for a large amount of money while their neighbours in the other half of the property have missed the boom and received perhaps one third less when selling later. Therefore it would be difficult to have capital values on a sound and up-to-date basis.
Perhaps a combination of a capital banding and an assessment of the property value would be appropriate. I always thought it wrong that after installing central heating one had to pay more in rates. At one time all kinds of ridiculous conditions existed. For instance, if one installed storage heaters the rates did not increase, but if one installed gas-fired central heating, which is more economic, they did increase. There have been so many such nonsenses and we must avoid them in any future system.
A suggestion that has been eloquently put forward is a combined tax for property and people. However, I am worried that there may be the same problem as now exists with the community charge. I remind your Lordships that when we debated the community charge in this House I was a member of the London Electricity Board. I pointed out that in London the annual turnover of people was 30 per cent. and therefore it was almost impossible to collect money in settlement of bills. The electricity board was trying to find only one person per property to bill but it still had millions of pounds worth of bad debts. However, the community charge system was proposing to find every living soul and it is difficult to find people if they do not want to be found. I believe that under the present system many people appear to have vanished off the face of the earth because they prefer to be anonymous. It is cheaper to be invisible, particularly in a high charge area, because you do not have to pay the community charge.
I make the following suggestion knowing the horror with which it will be received in the House. If one really wishes to be able to identify everyone in the country and to obtain payment one must introduce identity cards. I said that at a dental conference 25 years ago when I had arrived here from Australia only 10 years previously. I did not know then how sensitive was the subject of identity cards. All the other professional persons present threw up their hands in

1045
horror and said, "We did away with those at the end of the war and we shall never have them again". As an Australian I did not understand the attitude then and I understand it even less now.
What are all noble Lords wearing today, although we have been told not to wear them in the Chamber? We are wearing badges with photographs of our faces on them. The world is full of all forms of identification. Last week I read that it would be a good idea if when dealing with banks and building societies people had to present cards showing photographs of their faces. There has been great support for that argument. Therefore, if one intends to introduce a tax which must be paid by everyone in the country the only fair way is to ensure that no one will cheat the system. I believe that identity cards are the only answer.
I throw that in as a suggestion because I believe that we must have such a system or one which does not relate to identifying the number of people living in a property. One will end up with the situation that I have seen so often: the really honest person is disadvantaged because he or she is providing the names of everyone living in the house. As a dentist I have seen many people signing up for all kinds of free national health treatment then later saying, "That is rubbish. I want something more expensive". That contrasts with people who are actually qualified to have the treatment free of charge. The world is full of honest people who are disadvantaged by unscrupulous people who get away with their actions.
I fully support charge capping and rate capping. It is important that town halls are efficient and cost effective. They should be no different from any ordinary business or individual in terms of having to live within their means. That was a protective system when there were unlimited increases in the rates, and more recently in the community charge, which were terrifying for people to face. Therefore, it should be possible to have rate-capping.
However, some financial reforms which are already in operation are working very well. Competitive tendering has worked well as has residents' choice. Under the Housing Act, people can opt to buy a portion of their house. In Westminster one can buy 20 per cent of one's house. That is good because people who could not afford to buy the whole property are able to reduce the amount of their rent while at the same time acquiring an interest in and a part of the property.
However, there is need for more funding for housing. I have never understood the logic whereby if a council sells a property, it cannot re-invest in housing all the money which it received. That seems to me to be very illogical. I have heard reasons given but have never understood any of them.
I find the bed and breakfast provisions extraordinary and fortunately the Minister for Housing has recently changed those. Originally he made the statement that councils could not continue to rent flats for homeless people and that bed and breakfast accommodation would have to be used. Of course,
1046
that was much more expensive. However, he has now seen how illogical that was and has reversed it. I understand that it is now possible once more to rent flats for the homeless.
In controlling or directing how funds should be spent by local government, it is very important that central government should not interfere with the methods which local authorities have worked out for saving money and for getting value for money.
I wish to make a few minor but essential points. First, the Widdicombe Report, which recommended attendance allowances and extra payments for councillors, is rather unrealistic. The remuneration which local councillors receive—and they may perhaps be responsible for millions of pounds—is less than £20 per day and that is taxable. I believe that that is expecting people to give up their time for nothing. Therefore, if we are looking at a review of local government, we should look at a way of giving councillors greater reimbursement for their time.
We need a visible figurehead for our capital. When my husband was Lord Mayor of Westminster I went on an official visit to Beijing. The mayor of Beijing could not understand that he was speaking to the person who represented only a thirty-third of London. We explained that Westminster was very important and the seat of Government. He asked what the population was and we replied that it was 0.25 million, although it is less now. He was the mayor of Beijing which had a population of millions. Beijing had a special relationship with Paris and Bonn. There is no twinning but there is what is called a "special relationship" with other cities. He was extremely puzzled and the interpreter asked us several times who we were and who we represented in London. The Lord Mayor of London would be no better than the Lord Mayor of Westminster because I believe that he represents less people and has less electors. Therefore, in international terms we should have somebody to represent London. Interestingly enough, the mayor of Beijing was a cabinet minister in the government. I do not know whether that was a prerequisite or coincidental.
There is a special relationship between local councillors and their electors. A small number of voters can vote a councillor in or out. In that way, the elector has more direct control over his own local representative than at any other level of government. I also believe that to be a local councillor is most satisfying because it is possible to achieve things on an immediate and local basis which is extremely valuable. When I was a member of the Greater London Council I found it remote and that people did not really understand what it was. There was a huge electorate and a remoteness from that electorate.
However, there is a need for some kind of strategy plan for London. I understand that the traffic Bill in another place is suggesting a director for traffic. That would be good because it is essential to bridge boundaries in terms of roads going through the capital because there is a tendency to push the problem over a boundary into the next borough and that does not work. At the end of last year, London was at a

1047
standstill. It is only the current recession which is making us feel that the traffic congestion has eased. As soon as matters improve, once again it will be impossible.
Sound public transport is essential. Of course, there have been the most unfortunate disruptions recently which have made travelling very difficult.
Reorganisation and reforms in local government are disruptive and expensive. Therefore, they should not be rushed into or carried out too often. I believe that any changes should be implemented gradually, and I strongly support the point which has been made about evolution and not revolution.
The other point which I must support concerns the uniform business rate. That has hit some authorities very hard. Instead of having the money in hand and being able to earn interest on it, it is returned in small instalments. The rates have greatly increased in central London and they have had a disastrous effect on business. I support the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Rippon.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I join with all noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, for introducing this debate. I do that with a light heart because I was in almost total agreement with everything he said in the course of his speech.
I propose to discuss primarily one issue this evening; that is, the consequences of any major reform of local government as regards the police service. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who had considerable experience as chief constable of the West Midlands. That issue was touched on also by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster.
Before addressing that point, however, I should like to refer to one aspect of local government reform which is a matter of some importance. It has been debated in this House on a number of occasions, most recently during the course of a Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, aimed at introducing proportional representation in local government. That Bill was passed by this House but blocked by the House of Commons, which was hardly surprising because of the well-known opposition by the then Prime Minister to the concept in question.
The reason why that Bill had substantial support in this House was obvious. The unrepresentative character of many local authorities is one of the principal reasons why there has been such a massive erosion of the powers of local government to central government in the past 10 years. The antics of a small number of local authorities provided the excuse for a major intervention by central government.
I shall give one example, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, gave another. There are plenty of examples to be given but I choose that of Lambeth. At the last election the Labour Party in Lambeth secured the votes of less than 44 per cent. of those voting but it obtained 62.5 per cent. of the seats. Therefore, a minority became an overwhelming majority.
1048
At present, rent arrears in Lambeth are £25 million. There is a huge backlog of repairs, its streets are filthy and its services are decaying. The council leadership, faced with that position, has what can only be described as an unusual set of priorities. That was most recently demonstrated by its decision to call a special meeting of the council to discuss the war in the Gulf. I quote from the Daily Telegraph of 2nd February to give the House a flavour of the character of political debate in the London borough of Lambeth:
"A lone speaker from the Free Kuwait Campaign was subjected to racist taunts from people in the public balcony. His speech was followed by Mr. Dick North, of the Lambeth branch of the National Union of Teachers who, asked by a Tory councillor if he wanted the defeat of British and American forces, said that in any war between 'imperialist powers and oppressed people', he supported the oppressed.
Demonstrators responded with cheers and shouts of 'Victory to Iraq' … Onlookers in the public benches were mostly divided between those waving Union Flags and those who wanted to tear them down.
Attempts by council stewards to separate the antagonists failed and scuffles broke out on one balcony. The meeting had to be adjourned four times because of disruptions.
Members of the Lambeth Committee to Stop War in the Gulf broke into cries of 'Yes' when accused of wishing to see the allies defeated in the war. Earlier they chased and tried to punch a member of the public who heckled an anti-war speaker … Labour delayed the vote for more than an hour because some of their members had made clear they opposed the motion. The delaying tactics continued until 1 a.m., when the Labour leadership judged that enough opponents had gone home for the motion to be carried. It was passed by 26 votes to 24".
That was Lambeth Council. Those members were elected by less than 44 per cent. of the electorate and, by our ludicrous electoral system, were given a massive majority on that council. Imagine the attitude of people living in the London Borough of Lambeth when they read reports of that nature in their newspaper, knowing the quality of public services which exist in the borough.
There are many other examples. One could deal with the problems of Liverpool, with its massive disqualifications, expulsions and so forth. One could give examples of a different character of authority such as West Wiltshire. It is a Conservative authority and has been involved in one of the most unpleasant scandals seen in local government for many years. The result there was grotesquely unbalanced because of the first-past-the-post electoral system. We shall never improve the quality of our system of local government until we introduce a fair electoral system. I believe that one day we shall have such a system.
Having made those introductory remarks I wish to turn to the question identified by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, as one of the most important in the debate this evening. Twenty-five years ago my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—this matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who was not an enthusiast for the changes made—decided to reduce the number of police forces in England and Wales from 117 to 47. He excluded a number of other forces which were involved in local government reorganisation in the North East. He was acting on the

1049
basis of powers conferred on him by the Police Act 1964 following the report of the Willink Royal Commission.
The Home Secretary announced the decision in Parliament and, on re-reading Hansard, one was struck by the fact, notwithstanding what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that there was virtually no opposition. A few doubts were expressed but nothing of a fundamental character. The Home Secretary was required, as a result of the 1964 Act, to submit his proposals to public inquiries if there was opposition. A number of such inquiries took place. The problem was that if the inspector came down against him, he would have to secure explicit parliamentary approval for his proposals. In fact the inquiries supported the Home Secretary and he did not have to ask for those parliamentary powers.
That was in 1966 and 1967. At that time it did not occur to those of us in the Home Office that within seven years we would be involved in another massive series of police reorganisations. That happened as a result of the passage of the local government reforms in 1974. As a result of the legislation new police forces were created which were accountable to those new authorities. Other changes were made. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to one of them. A police force was recreated in 1974; it was one of the smallest police forces in the country. All that was done on the back of local government reorganisation without the issue of whether or not it was a good idea in itself ever being addressed.
That led to other unfortunate consequences. In Lancashire and Durham, police forces were substantially reduced in size. The consequence was that after 1974 until the present day one of the major problems experienced by the chief constables of those forces has been arranging for the letting of as much as possible of the large amount of office space they had had as their headquarters, which had been created for forces at least twice their current size.
Since that time we have seen the abolition of the metropolitan authorities. Despite that—or perhaps because of it—there are now calls for further major changes in the structure of local government. As we heard today, there are suggestions that the counties should be abolished; some of those favouring abolition, though not all, are in favour of the creation of new regional authorities. Others favour the creation of city mayors on the American pattern. Mr. Heseltine is said to be keen on that idea. I believe that there is something to be said for it. But it is not my desire this evening to discuss the merits of those specific proposals. I am a sceptic about many of them. One must admit that the constant changes in the structure of local government have cost immense sums of public money. They have put greater power into the hands of central government and created a substantial amount of public disillusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred to the salary structure of chief executives when reforms were introduced. I remember addressing a meeting of magistrates early in my period of office at the Home Office in 1974. I sat next to a very agreeable man who
1050
was a chief executive. It later became clear that he was earning 15 per cent. more than the then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. It occurred to me that that was an unusual set of priorities. I am sure that he was a chief executive of outstanding quality. However, it did not occur to me that he was worth 15 per cent. more than the noble Lord, Lord Croham, who was then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury.
I could continue giving examples of that sort, each of which creates further public disillusion about what is happening. Let me push my own doubts to one side. I believe that some changes will be made. They will carry major implications in regard to the police service. If we face the situation where counties are abolished it is likely that there will be those in government and in Parliament who will ask why the county police forces should be maintained in their present form. Of course they could be overseen by the district authorities acting on the basis of joint boards of the kind we see with, for instance, the Sussex police force, which is drawn from the West Sussex and East Sussex County Councils. There are many other examples, including the old metropolitan counties. However, it is far more likely that there will be calls for a more profound restructuring of the police service. We are already hearing that from the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. We must seriously examine that pressure.
I shall give briefly some of the options advanced. First, there are those who argue that we should maintain the current system accompanied by the amalgamation of some of the smaller forces. The case for that is fairly strong. The present system ensures that in many areas of the country the police are close to the local community. If one changes that there is a real risk that public confidence in the police will be undermined. It is asked, "Why break up the system when it is working well?"
Secondly, there is the argument in favour of regional police forces. Were this country to have a tier of regional government the case for a regional police force might be rather persuasive. There would then be an elected regional government to which, in one form or another, the chief officer of the force concerned could be accountable. It is said that that would be more cost effective than the present arrangements, incorporating bigger specialist departments with improved career planning and so on. That presupposes that we have regional government. In Germany, with its Länder system where there is a Ministry of the Interior in each of the German states, and a Federal Minister of the Interior in Bonn, it works rather well —that is, until something goes wrong. Then there is the likelihood—and we have seen some examples of this in West Germany—of a major political brawl between the Länder and the Federal Government.
As I have said, there are plenty of other arguments to demonstrate that the police can be reorganised in such a way if there is a tier of regional government. The case for doing so if there is no regional government is far from persuasive. There is then the third option, to which the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster and Lord Knights referred

1051
and to which they said they were very much opposed. That is the idea of a national police force, which was a scheme put forward in the Goodhart minority report to the Willink Royal Commission. There are arguments for that and the Goodhart minority report was a very well argued position paper.
There are, however, serious potential disadvantages. Would we all be really happy at having a single Minister responsible for all senior police appointments? On some occasions would there not be a risk that it would be said that a certain senior officer's career was prospering because of his very happy relations with a particular group of politicians? Would there be a risk that the police would be seen as agents of central government and that a divide might open up between the police and the public? The choices are not easy. The country must recognise that, if we get involved in significant changes to the structure of local government, this issue is going to be high on the political agenda. I hope that, if we are to have any approach of this kind, it will not be made in a government department and then voted through by a complaisant majority in the House of Commons. We have seen far too much of that in the past.
Let us examine for a moment the contrast between the poll tax legislation that we have been discussing today and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The former was drafted wholly in a government department. The poll tax legislation involved a group of civil servants working directly to Ministers. The latter was the product of a serious, careful and professional inquiry by a Royal Commission on which there were judges, academics, former senior police officers and so on. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act worked, but the poll tax legislation is, as we all recognise, in a most frightful mess.
In a situation of this kind we have to avoid decisions being made wholly within government departments. In my view it would be entirely undesirable to make major changes in police force structure and organisation without some form of independent inquiry. Thirty years after Willink it is time for a Royal Commission on the police. It would be most unfortunate if substantial changes were forced on the police service on the back of changes in the structure of local government. If this issue is mishandled, it could do serious damage as regards relations between the police and the public.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, like previous speakers, I express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for introducing such an important subject for debate. Perhaps I have an advantage over most noble Lords. On more than one occasion I have had to visit him as a local authority representative. Sometimes I had to visit him with a begging bowl when he was Secretary of State in Mr Heath's government. I did not always get what I wanted, but there was never any adversarial politics between us
1052
such as has unfortunately developed between us since. There was always some understanding of one another's position.
The noble Lord made some suggestion about the cost of the disturbance to local government under reorganisation. I had the privilege of being elected the new leader of the Manchester metropolitan district, as it became, when the Greater Manchester metropolitan council was formed in the reorganisation of the 1970s. We lost every chief officer that we had to the Greater Manchester county which had, in real terms, less responsibility than the old city of Manchester. In fact there was a search for jobs and work to give to the counties because a role had not been established for them.
The salaries were decided on a head count. I believe it was a former member of your Lordships' House who is no longer with us who chaired the committee that dealt with the matter. I believe the chairman was Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, a former Labour MP. We were horrified to find that people such as our third-tier officers, earning between £8,000 and £10,000 a year, were walking a quarter of a mile down the street into the new county offices where they picked up almost double that salary. No one has mentioned the cost of the last exercise in reorganisation in relation to redundancy money, which involved the dispersal or dismemberment of county councils.
The chief executive of the Greater Manchester Council was just over 50 years of age when he retired. He drew f194,000 in redundancy money. That is an indication of the scale involved each time we begin to monkey about with local government because the professional classes never underrate their own case. No mistake should be made about that. The cost of reorganisation was millions of pounds. It is not a laughing matter. What also saddened me was the Government's action in winding up some of the new towns. The sum I have spoken about of £194,000 is chicken feed compared with what has been paid to some of the officers from the new towns. The money has been taken from public funds to buy the officers out of position.
I am pretty leery about any massive changes taking place. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, spoke about her experience in local government in London. My experience involved Manchester. I also know a great deal about Leeds: the experience is not dissimilar. It would be dangerous for any government or anyone with political views to think that a local government pattern can be produced to fit the whole of the United Kingdom: the demographic differences are so marked. Dorset and Somerset cannot be equated with local government bodies in London, in Manchester, a conurbation of nearly three million people, and in Leeds, the centre for about two million people. The areas are totally different.
There has to be some system for adjusting the areas. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, got it right when he said that local government was not imposed on areas but grew there because the people wanted a say in what was happening. To a great extent they decided the formation of bodies which suited their particular areas. That worked because local government has a

1053
history in this country of being far better as an innovator in some respects than national government of any political persuasion.
I hope I shall not offend anyone if I refer to some comments made to me by a former friend on the other side who is no longer with us. He was very prominent in local government at one time and an adviser on the subject at Conservative Central Office. Only three or four years ago he said to me: "You have to understand, Joe, that we have a Prime Minister who hates local government. She has no time for it. She sees it is an obstacle to central government policies being enacted quickly." There lies the seed of the antagonism that has existed between the two sectors. It is very sad indeed to see the way in which matters have changed over the past 10 years. I do not recall in my time in local government over 17 years, whether under a Labour or Conservative government, legislation so outrageously designed just to suit their own supporters. An outstanding example of that is education. I picked up a piece from my local newspaper which said that average expenditure per pupil in local authority schools is £83 per capita in the public sector. But in the opted out schools it is £326 and in the borough of Tameside, where I happen to live, the local authority schools receive £51 per capita. The opted out schools receive £326 per head. I do not accept that that is fair and equitable legislation with no political aim. I do not think that Members on the other side will accept it. I do not believe it would have happened when the noble Lord who initiated this debate was a Member of the Cabinet and responsible for dealing with such matters. It is outrageous.
I also talked about innovation. The great city of Manchester did not become Labour controlled until after the war. We had the second largest water undertakings in the country. Only the metropolitan undertaking was bigger. They were developed on a communal basis because Manchester also accommodated 17 other authorities on the way down from the Lake District. They drew from Manchester's water. They were not only looking after Manchester. But what happened? The metropolitan counties were set up. One previous speaker on the other side of the House said that responsibility for water and health had beer taken away from local authorities. I am not sure that even the health services that were taken away from local authorities have been improved. They were handed to people not responsible to those who could vote them out if they did not like what they were doing. I am not too sure that the midwifery services, the domiciliary services in Manchester and even the chiropody services for elderly people have been improved. Those elderly people were far better off then than they have ever been since because they had someone near them to whom they could complain. That was done by a Conservative Government. I am not a centralist in my own party. There are centralists in every party but they have to be watched. In any future arrangements I should like to see some power —I do not like using the word "power"; I want to see a lot of the responsibilities and services that local authorities used to have being given back to them.
It is correct to say that most people who have
1054
spoken in the debate have an interest. I cannot quote them all individually, but there seems to be a very strongly held view that the county councils as they stand—I am talking about the traditional ones, not the metropolitan ones that were disposed of—should be left alone to get on with their particular job. My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, suggested the setting up of a Royal Commission to look into the general situation to see whether changes are necessary. That might be a good idea but I would be worried by the time factor.
The other general theme I picked up was that there does not seem to be any overwhelming desire by Members of your Lordships' House to see central government being totally responsible for funding education. From my own experience I would be against that. There is no question at all that, whatever the political colour of the government, if they paid 100 per cent. towards the piper, they would want 100 per cent. of the tune. I am totally against that. Though we all aspire to getting the best education for our children it can be achieved differently in different parts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was rather unfair when she referred to the dearth of speakers on this side. I do not like to play tit-for-tat; but I have to say that for a successive number of Labour debates not one noble Lord from the Government Back-Benches has spoken. She should also remember that more than 400 Members of your Lordships' House take the Government Whip. When I arrived in this House in 1983 I joined the company of just over 130 Labour Peers. We are now down to just over 100. That is no fault of the Labour Party. That is the fault of the Prime Minister who has just left office. She persistently refused to make up our complement. We do the best we can on reducing numbers. Do not be too eager to criticise on that particular issue.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords. I hope I made it clear. I was not simply criticising the lack of speakers. I accepted that there have been times when noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have criticised this side of the House for not joining a debate in sufficient numbers. That is right. But in the context of this debate my argument was that we needed broad agreement about the review of changes in local government. It seemed to me that if we were not getting many ideas from the other side, we were unlikely to get that agreement. I was hoping that was not deliberate. That was why I made the point.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Baroness may have a point; but let us be quite clear about it. I took the view that she meant that we were not as interested as we ought to have been. I also say that we take part in the maximum number of debates. I speak as often as any on the Front Benches. I speak from the Front Bench today because of the tragedy that has hit the person who should have replied to this debate. But mainly I like to speak from the Back-Benches. It is not always what I want to do but we are few on the ground in terms of people who can

1055
get here. More than 30 Labour Peers and Peeresses have died since I joined this place, and they have only been partially replaced.
I take on board the powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I do not particularly want to go too far into the question of proportional representation. I am not dodging the question of Lambeth. I should like to come back to that. The noble Lord referred to the future role of police forces. I speak as someone who is totally in support of police forces. A national police force would be disastrous. Some of the present police forces are too big. I do not have expert knowledge on the subject. I become a little disturbed when I continually read about prosecutions of people who were possibly known to be guilty but who got off on technicalities because senior officers presented a bad case or stepped outside the normal rules of presenting a case. I am not talking about one police force in particular when I say that. It is happening all too regularly to be ignored.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned Lambeth. I have to say that my party and I have no time at all for the nonsense that has been going on there. Councillors are not elected to talk about foreign policy and events in the Gulf.
There is another way that I want to approach the question of Lambeth. We are all big enough to be a little forgiving sometimes. A few years ago the councillors then controlling Lambeth—it was Labour controlled—did some rather stupid things financially. I am not talking about dishonesty. But they did not levy rents, and they did not levy rates, in accordance with the law. The public auditor moved in. That resulted in a number of them being surcharged heavily and disbarred from holding office. The debts in relation to the first set of charges were paid some months ago, the councillors having been disbarred from the council. However, the public auditor has now found another set of figures covering the same period and has set the proceedings in motion once again to surcharge the councillors and disbar them from office. I have always believed that, once you had paid the penalty, that was enough. I hope that the present Prime Minister, who was a member of Lambeth Council, will look into the matter.
I should like to refer for a few moments to the poll tax. I am the first to say that when the issue was enjoined in this Chamber there was not unanimity for the poll tax on the Government side. In fact a considerable number of noble Lords on the Government Benches were against it. I remember that on one night an amendment put forward by a noble Lord on the Government side was beaten only when a fleet of buses brought 300 or so noble Lords here to vote. The Government now seem to have had a change of heart. They were warned at the time about what would happen. The Prime Minister of the day was adamant that this was the way to do it. She did not realise that she was shooting herself, not in the foot, but in the heart. The issue literally destroyed her.
Who are the other guilty men? I have before me a well researched article from the Sunday Times by
1056
Robert Harris. He is not a paid up member of the Labour Party. He gives a blow by blow account of what happened, from the time John Selwyn Gummer was chairman of the Tory Party and used £226 million of public money to promote the idea of the poll tax by leaflets and publicity. Do noble Lords know that every time someone dies it costs £9 to take the name off the poll tax register? How the charges mount up is beyond belief. It is calculated that this appalling blunder has cost an extra £3,390 million, and it is all because of party politics. This is a different standard. The councillors in Lambeth stepped outside the law and were punished, but when Ministers blow this money they are untouchable.
The biggest robbery on record was perpetrated by this Government. I referred earlier to Manchester's water, but in doing so I could have referred to Birmingham's water, to Liverpool's water and to Sheffield's water. Those cities were running their water systems without government interference and were doing it well. However, the Government decided that they could not give responsibility for water to the counties and so they set up new quangos. They handed over responsibility for water to the new water authorities. The man appointed chairman of the Manchester authority was the biggest opponent of Manchester Council, lived in the Lake District and happened to be an active supporter of the Conservative Party. But, of course, that was an accident. He was the most able man in the North-West in regard to water! What took place then? No one could question what the quangos were doing and then of course the Government decided to privatise the water authorities. In 1974 Manchester's water system alone was valued at more than £300 million. What was the global figure? What would the value have been if, when the authority was sold off to the private sector, appreciation of the assets had been taken into account? It was a giveaway.
I recall that the noble Lord who initiated this debate said at the time that the money should have gone back to the local authorities. Where did it go? It went into the Government's coffers to help Mr. Lawson and Mr. Major put us in the mess we now face. What have they done with all the money raised from privatisations? And what have they done with the billions of pounds of oil revenues? They have frittered it away. Yet we have a load of nonsense like the poll tax, the problems of which were predicted by members of both political parties.
We have had a good debate on an interesting subject. This is not a laughing matter. It is not funny that the Government can legislate on people's money and then deny them access to it. If a previous Labour government had dared to take into public ownership one small business without adequate compensation for those from whom it was taken, there would have been ructions. We must return to a society where there is more respect for other views and where standards are not decided by political bias. This Government have set a standard of partisanship in government which may not work to the best interests of people if there is a change of government. They have set the

1057
scene. They have filled all the quangos with their own supporters. They have set a standard which one of these days they may well come to rue.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for introducing this timely debate. I do not know the answer to the poll tax. But no one else does yet. My party will scrap it and start from scratch. It will join any group to discuss the alternative. That is the only way forward because no one has a sounder idea.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was in Birmingham earlier today, speaking to a conference of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I received a less than polite welcome during that conference. Therefore, the debate to which we have just been listening has not only been fascinating and enjoyable for me; it has also come as something of a relief.
I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham for initiating this excellent debate on the structure and finance of local government and indeed for his interesting and impressive opening speech. It is particularly opportune in the light of the Government's current review.
Our review is concerned with local government functions—a word that is missing from the title of my noble friend's debate—structure and finance; and in its scope it is the most wide-ranging that has ever taken place. Previous reviews have concentrated on either structure or finance, but not the two together. Clearly the questions of what local authorities should do, how they should be organised and how they should be financed are inter-related in a number of different ways. We now have the opportunity to look at all these issues together.
It is important not to see the current review simply as a review of the community charge. Of course we are looking at the community charge. As many noble Lords have said, there are a number of aspects which we know are of concern both to local authorities and to community charge payers. We have already announced a number of changes for next year which are designed to provide help to a great many charge payers; and our review will be looking at both the principles and the detailed operation of the community charge. But that is not the sole purpose of the review.
All of us who take an interest in local government —and there are many in your Lordships' House who have a great and detailed knowledge of the subject —will recognise that the relationship between central and local government is of the utmost importance. It cannot be otherwise. Local authorities currently raise about one-third of their revenue from the community charge. The remaining two-thirds comes from the business rate and from government grants. The national taxpayer makes a major contribution to local authority revenue, so government cannot help being closely involved in local affairs. They have a responsibility both to Parliament and the taxpayer to ensure that the arrangements by which local government raises and spends its revenue are right in principle and efficient in their operation.
1058
However, the relationship between central and local government should reflect much more than that. It should not simply be a question of government, in their role as paymaster, holding local authorities to account. There should be a genuine partnership, based on the recognition that some functions are best carried out locally and some centrally, but that at the end of the day local and central government have the same aim; namely, to serve the public who have elected them and whose representatives they are.
This recognition that local and central government have different roles is very important. There are areas, such as education, where policy must be determined by Parliament. It is quite wrong for local authorities, which are charged with the delivery of those services once Parliament has determined legislation, to seek to resist national reforms with which they disagree so that they are implemented in a way which differs from that envisaged by Parliament. Our review will certainly have to address the very important question of where it is appropriate for central government to determine policy and priorities and where it is appropriate for local authorities to have discretion.
Can it really be right that we have reached the position where it is no longer thought particularly remarkable if a local authority takes legal action against Her Majesty's Government and that one part of the public administration should, in effect, be suing another? What could be more wasteful of public resources? I see that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness in that I believe that there should be a more satisfactory partnership between local and central government, but given the fact that the courts have very often held in favour of local authorities, the point she is now making is a very weak one.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord missed the point I was trying to make. I believe that we ought to have a partnership which eliminates the need for taking such action. We are talking about a way forward. I am simply saying that the frequency with which such action takes place is no longer remarkable. That is the issue which needs to be addressed. As I said, what could be more wasteful of public resources? That kind of friction may produce a great deal of heat, but it certainly does not provide a very edifying spectacle. Our neighbours overseas must be astonished that it could happen. Central and local government should be pulling together, not fighting one another.
Our review of local government is based on a strong desire on the part of the Government to re-establish a more stable relationship between central and local government. We are anxious to ensure that local government itself is closely involved in the process. We asked the national local authority associations to provide their agenda of the issues they want to see addressed by the review. They duly submitted their thoughts, which we are happy to include in the coverage of the review. We have invited them to put forward their views on the agenda items as soon as possible.

1059
Our interest in ensuring the widest possible participation in the review has resulted in our invitation to all parties to contribute to it. That is a genuine offer, which I am pleased to say has been accepted by the Liberal Democratic Party, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. It is a matter of genuine regret to the Government that the official Opposition have felt unable to respond positively, but have found it necessary to stipulate a precondition. The precondition is a narrow one: it is that we should commit ourselves from the outset to the abolition of the community charge. But, as I have said, the review is much wider than that. It is a great pity that the Opposition are denying themselves the opportunity to participate in a debate which is of immense importance to all our citizens and which will shape the kind of local government we have for the foreseeable future by seeking to limit the terms of the review. It is also equally indicative that my comments have been the source of some amusement to noble Lords on the Benches opposite.
The Government are not being intransigent in refusing to rule out the community charge from the word "go". The House will, I hope, accept that we simply cannot announce a review in which all options are open and then instantly rule out one of those options. The community charge may not be universally popular but there are a number of features which have found widespread support; notably—and this point was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour—the principle that everyone should make some sort of contribution to the cost of local services. We are not so bold as to claim that we know the answers before we start. There would be little point in undertaking a review if that were the case. We shall not rule out anything until we are convinced that it is right to do so.
I hope, even at this late stage, that the Opposition might reconsider their position. Local representatives of the Labour Party have not been as reluctant to participate as the parliamentary party. Labour leaders of councils have taken part in discussions with my ministerial colleagues and myself and we have had many constructive letters from the leaders and chief executives of Labour-controlled authorities. They have sensibly decided not to let slip a great opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am sure that they find it difficult to understand why they are getting so little support from their national counterparts.
As I said, any review of local government must take as its starting point the functions which we expect local government to carry out. These have been refined over the years, but for the most part local government today carries out as broad a range of functions as it has always done. The announcement of the current review has brought forward a great many suggestions for change. It is argued, for example, that the community charge could be reduced if certain local authority functions were either fully funded by central government, or even administered centrally. Again, that point was raised by several noble Lords, but especially by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour.
1060
I have said that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. We shall certainly be looking at the range of local authority services to see whether it is right that they should continue to be local functions; and, if so, whether they are administered at the right level. But I have to say that any case for change must be made on service grounds and not simply in order to reduce the community charge. That would be allowing the financial tail to wag the service dog. We must be certain that change would be in the best interests of any service for which it might be suggested.
I should like to make one further point about local authority functions. It is not enough simply to take decisions about the responsibility for administering services. Any government who did that would be shirking the very important responsibility of ensuring that services are provided to an acceptable standard. That is a responsibility which this Government have not shirked; and we do not intend to shirk it in the future.
Alongside functions we will need to consider structure. Many noble Lords will be aware that the reorganisation of local boundaries which took place in England and Wales in 1974 is still a matter of controversy in many areas. Old geographical loyalties die hard and many of those responsible for the changes must have been surprised at how much latent interest in local government matters suddenly came to the surface. Much may, of course, have stemmed from the change in postal addresses which accompanied the change in administrative arrangements—something which did not happen in the 1965 reorganisation in the London area. People were allowed to retain Middlesex, Kent and Surrey addresses, even though they then lived in Greater London. That was done differently nine years later. The depth of feeling one still discovers on this subject, after nearly 20 years, is a warning to future reformers.
At this stage it is too early to give any indication of the likely outcome of the review on structure. We are aware of the many suggestions which have been put forward in this area and we are looking carefully at all of them. Unitary authorities are a common suggestion, but within that umbrella term there are a number of patterns. One could envisage abolishing all county councils or district councils. Again, one could envisage entirely new administrative areas. Some districts—such as those which were formerly county boroughs—could be turned into unitary authorities, while leaving a two-tier pattern in the rest of the country.
Change could be brought about all at once or, as has been suggested by some noble Lords, it could be introduced by the evolutionary approach. We shall of course be looking at the need for very local representation. We shall also consider the remarks made in that context by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle about parish councils. I can also assure the House that the issues and implications of restructuring local government, such as the important points made about policing arrangements raised by the noble Lords, Lord Knights and Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be thoroughly examined. All those possibilities, and others, are being looked at as part of the review.

1061
Separate discussions are also taking place in Scotland and Wales where local government has its own character and traditions.
We also believe that the time is right to take a fresh look at how local authorities are organised and managed internally. There are many different approaches to that subject and plenty of good ideas in the air. Some councils are already experimenting informally with new ideas about organising themselves.
We are asking questions about the decision-making process inside local authorities and the role of councillors. The present system of decision by whole council or committee dates back to the 19th century. We need to consider whether there may not be better and more efficient ways of doing things. Should we be moving to a more executive style of decision-making and management, perhaps with directly elected leaders who could be given extra authority in order to get things done more quickly?
If we did, what would be the role of other councillors? Does the number of councillors need to be revised? All those are big questions and a lively debate about them is already under way in local government.
My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle talked about councillors' remuneration and the need to attract people of the right calibre. We shall be looking carefully at that point which is within the scope of the review The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned proportional representation. Even electoral arrangements are within the scope of the review. If people have been contributing to the debate I am sure that that point has been put vigorously.
Finally, we come to finance. I hope that I have shown that our review will be looking at that question in a much wider context, but I accept that many people find it the most important part of the review.
There are a great many issues of principle to be examined, many of which your Lordships have raised this afternoon. I have already said that the government currently provide about half of local government revenue. Is that the right level? Should the Government provide a much higher percentage? Or would that be going too far in the direction of central control? Or should a local authority be able to raise much more of its own revenue, perhaps from a variety of sources?
Beyond those questions of principle there are further questions about the right revenue-raising mechanisms. Is the community charge the best way of collecting local revenue? Should we return to a property tax? Is it right that most adults in an area should contribute something to the cost of local services? If so, can arrangements be devised which do not place too great an administrative burden on local authorities? Those are all questions which have exercised your Lordships this afternoon, and which will continue to exercise the Government during the course of the review.
One common suggestion is that local taxation should bear a greater relationship to the ability to pay. Many interesting suggestions as to how that might be achieve I have been put forward. But they open up a
1062
range of further questions. How is it to be achieved? Even the Inland Revenue does not have up-to-date information on the incomes of all 41 million adults in Great Britain, since most people either pay no tax, or have their tax collected through PAYE, and never receive a tax return. Apart from the administrative difficulties (and they are many), there are also questions of principle. The confidentiality of tax records is, quite rightly, a matter of great concern to many people. That point has been raised in the debate.
Those are serious questions. They do not, however, rule out a link between ability to pay and local taxation. There are other ways of tackling the issue; and we are looking at them. The question of spouses with no income is often raised in that context. Again, the matter is not straightforward. How does one distinguish between the non-working wife of a duke and the non-working wife of a dustman? But again, the matter of reliefs and exemptions in any system of local taxation is clearly something we shall be looking at.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am fascinated by the Minister's phraseology. she will recall that it was Mr. Ridley as Secretary of State who used the example of the duke and dustman. His argument was that there should be no distinction in taxation between them. Is that still the Government's view?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's intervention depressing. The Government have said that they are prepared to take a clean sheet of paper and to look at all issues such as finance, structure and functions. They have not ruled out the community charge. To snipe about what was said a year ago is not constructive. It does not push the debate on one iota.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was less than generous in his remarks about the relationship between local and central government as it related to the North-East and North-West. He cited one example in Manchester which I visited and found to be impressive. He presented it as an isolated example, but there are more than 500 companies working with inner city task forces and with local authority and central government funding. There were 161 projects set up last year. There are many examples of successful partnership arrangements across the North-East, the Midlands and the North-West. They are good examples of how differences can be buried and how local government, central government and the private sector can work constructively together.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour asked for a response from all Front Benches to proposals for what she described as the imposition of a 100 per cent. grant from central government to local government. She said that it would be an option in the absence of a consensus about the future of local authorities. That may also answer the point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. It is an interesting idea. My noble friend suggested that we should try so far as possible to reach an all-party agreement about a way forward in local government. Again, I say that it is depressing that our colleagues opposite are not part of

1063
the debate. If we can work together and achieve the broadest degree of consensus, there is the possibility that we shall find the right solution which will carry us forward for more than 20 years, as my noble friend Lord Rippon said.
My noble friend Lord Alport was robust when he said that whatever happens we must not extend the powers of any central government department at the expense of local authorities. The purpose of the review is to find the best way of organising and funding local services. He can rest assured that we shall not be increasing the importance of a central government department at the expense of local government. My noble friend Lord Norrie was worried about county environmental functions and responsibilities. The review is looking at functions and deciding the most appropriate level for the delivery of those functions. Clearly environmental responsibilities will feature as part of that consideration.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes also mentioned allowances. She said that where local decision-making results in value for money, it should be left at a local level and not interfered with. Again, I assure my noble friend that that point comes within the scope of the review, because at the end of the day we want local government that makes sense, which is the point my noble friend makes.
Perhaps I may say again how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Rippon for initiating the debate and to noble Lords who have contributed to it. I can give your Lordships an assurance that the entire debate will be submitted to the review as an important statement of the House and a contribution to the body of opinion on this issue.
Noble Lords who have raised specific points in relation to the community charge this afternoon may therefore be assured that all of them will be carefully examined as part of the review. I invite any noble Lord who would like to elaborate on anything said in today's debate, or indeed to offer new ideas, to make a submission in writing either to me or to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We welcome all constructive suggestions, and all contributions from your Lordships will be fully considered as part of the review.
To try to stabilise and develop a fruitful relationship between central and local government is no easy matter, but I hope that I have left your Lordships in no doubt that the Government will do their best to bring about such a relationship, with all the benefits which that will bring to local people.
The quality of the contributions to the subject of local government today has more than justified the calling of the debate by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham. We thank him for that.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask whether the review also includes consideration of the damage being done to local education authorities and their functions by the opting-out provisions. More and more schools may take up that option.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not accept the point made by the right reverend Prelate that damage is being done. Certainly the future of local education authorities, of education and how local authorities organise it, are all within the scope of the review. I refute the point made by the right reverend Prelate.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister warmly for the way in which she replied to the debate. As is usual in any debate on local government there is always a sufficient divergence of views for the Minister to be able to pick and choose. This has happened very effectively in the past. For my part I welcome everything she said about the concept of partnership. We have not heard enough about it in recent years.
Speaking as a new loyalist, I entirely share her view that we should wipe the slate clean and start again. I suppose we may say of this debate what an experienced diplomat said after one conference: "Nothing has been settled, but the concept has been strengthened". One concept has run through all the speeches and I am sure that my noble friend has taken it on board. We wish to see more decentralisation from Whitehall, whatever system may be devised.
I have made many notes on the speeches and would like to say something about them but I am sure I shall be forgiven if at this stage of the proceedings I simply say that they all deserve careful study. It seemed to me that the speeches fell broadly into three categories: first, there are those who did not want any change at all. They were like the late Mr. Justice Astbury who frequently said, "Reform, reform! Aren't things bad enough already?" Secondly, there are those who want a blanket comprehensive review with reference to the Royal Commission. I share the doubts that have been expressed about that. We had the Layfield Report and the Redcliffe-Maud Report. Royal Commissions are a device by which governments tend to kick the ball into the long grass from which it normally returns muddier than before.
On balance, I am glad that many of your Lordships shared my view that we should proceed in an evolutionary way. I certainly do not believe that we should freeze everything because a great deal can be done, without any fundamental change, that would create an improvement. I did not quite follow my noble friend's reference to my having mentioned 20 years. I do not know whether that applied to what I said about the review that was supposed to take place under Sections 47 and 48 of the Local Government Act 1972.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to intervene, I thought he referred to any changes having to last at least 20 years. I expressed the hope that this one would last at least 20 years and perhaps more.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I said at least several parliaments and more than one generation. In the 1972 Act it was envisaged that a review should take place not earlier than 10 years and not later than 15 years after the coming into force of the Act. Things

1065
are done these days by orders, and even by circulars, and the Government have just extended that to 18 years; there was no need to change the primary legislation. However, I have said enough about that from time to time.
All that the Government have done is, in 1985, to restrict the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission in regard to local government. If we examine the situation area by area using that procedure, we can deal more effectively than we have recently with the problem of Humberside. I did not deal with the police, I know nothing about crime in Reading.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is none!
Lord Rippon: My Lords, I know that in my own rural area of Northumberland we were offended when the police wished to take our local policeman away because he had not made an arrest for 20 years. The truth was that he could spot any villain from the local pub. He knew them all, there was no crime. We may do better with a few more police on the beat and to that extent we might also show a good deal of consensus on that. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Criminal Justice Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Child Poverty and Deprivation
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with the findings of Child Poverty and Deprivation in the UK, a report by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw on behalf of the National Children's Bureau for the United Nations Children's Fund.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for a number of years now UNICEF has produced an annual report: The State of the World's Children. It focuses on children's deprivation in the developing world. However, in recent years anxiety about children in industrialised countries has led UNICEF to decide to review the state of children in eight specified countries each with a different political, economic and social make-up. Those countries are: Hungary, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Sweden, the UK, the USA and the USSR. UNICEF will respond to the studies when they have all been completed. The UK study has been one of the first to appear and is the subject of our debate this evening.
The review was conducted according to an analytical framework set up by UNICEF to test whether children's welfare in the countries in question had been slowing down or even deteriorating. Professor Jonathan Bradshaw has examined the impact of poverty on many aspects of children's lives, including infant and childhood death, child development, homelessness, child abuse, educational attainment and juvenile crime. Many of the same lines
1066
of examination were taken by UNICEF in assessing for their annual report on the state of the world's children the situation of children in the developing world.
Before I outline some of the report's main findings, I want to quote what Professor Bradshaw says in his introduction. Wishing to explain some of the problems which he encountered, he comments:
"Perhaps an ominous reflection of the position in the UK is that it is difficult to answer the questions that UNICEF has posed. The essence of the problem is that while the UK has what constitutes an excellent national database on family or household living standards, social conditions and social attitudes, children have not been the primary focus of attention …
"UNICEF has quite rightly emphasised outputs and impacts rather than inputs. In considering children's well-being we should try to concentrate not on inputs such as the amounts of child benefit and other benefits or expenditure on services but on outputs such as the school enrolment rates or the availability of playgrounds and, more importantly, on impacts such as school performance, infant mortality or the heights and weights of children. There is … generally much better data on inputs than there is on outputs and impacts".
In conclusion, he states:
"The final problem we face in responding to UNICEF's commission is that much of the evidence that might be available on the impact on children of changes in the last 10 to 15 years is not yet available. This is partly due to the fact that the data has not yet emerged".
Professor Bradshaw thus sets out the parameters and the problems with which he was faced in making the review. In his survey he considers, first, child poverty in the 1980s, secondly, its causes and, thirdly, its impact upon children. Then he gives his conclusions. There is little doubt that his finding on child poverty is of great concern. I am sure that noble Lords who follow me this evening will agree. He found that the number of children living in poverty was estimated at 2 million, which means that the number has doubled during the 1980s.
Professor Bradshaw accepts that in Britain there is no generally accepted definition of poverty. There has been much discussion on that point. As a basis for his study, he considers the number of children living on or near income support. That is a government safety net. He also considers the number of children living in families which earn half the average national wage or less. We are talking about a couple with two children having to exist on about £85 a week.
We know that safety net levels have risen. That has accounted for the rise in the number of people on benefit. Surely, as a rich country, our minimum standards should be higher. As the Government have often told us, average incomes have risen. That is a good thing, but it is wrong that that benefit has not been shared with enough children. That has led to the increasing gap between high and low income families. The so-called trickle-down effect from the better off to the badly off has not materialised as the Government so often told us would be the case.
If one tries to imagine a family attempting to bring up two children adequately on £85 a week, one realises what an impossibility that is. Professor Bradshaw states that the lives of children brought up at that level of income are,

1067
"marked by the unrelieved struggle to manage with dreary diets and drab clothing. They also suffer what amounts to cultural imprisonment in their homes in our society in which getting out with money to spend on recreation and leisure is normal at every other income level".
The report also describes some of the effects of poverty on children. It mentions increased health problems, lower birth weights and childhood morbidity. A particular effect of poverty is poor self-esteem and low expectations. Professor Bradshaw also refers to the nutritional status of British children. That nutritional status has deteriorated in the 1980s, largely because of the abolition of price support for school meals and reduced nutritional standards. I know that my noble friend Lord Rea will speak with greater authority on that subject than I can.
The report stresses that, in terms of total nutrients per day for children in families which receive benefit, diets are,
"grossly inadequate with serious deficiencies in intake of iron, vitamin C and other minerals'.
One normally reads such comments about children in developing countries. It comes as a great shock to see such statistics about British children.
Another surprising revelation is that, despite our prosperity, immunisation levels in this country are not as high as they should be. Whooping cough immunisation among British children is at a lower level than in Botswana, Costa Rica or Egypt. I have often wondered why we do not ask parents to bring their children's immunisation certificates with them when they enroll their children in school. That sensible provision is used in many other European countries.
Professor Bradshaw describes the increase in homelessness which erupted as a result of the reduction in expenditure on housing. There has been a doubling in the number of children living in bed and breakfast accommodation and hostels. That has resulted in a subsequent deterioration in their diet and an increase in children reporting sickness.
Professor Bradshaw concludes that inequalities in children's lives have increased. He states in the report that,
"The lives of children in a two parent, two-career family, living in owner-occupied housing in the south of England have improved. In contrast, the lives of children in an unemployed or lone-parent family living in rented accommodation in the inner cities or North of England have got worse. Health, education and social services have deteriorated. Black children and families are particularly disadvantaged on many fronts".
Professor Bradshaw is right to state that some indicators suggest that things have got better. Among the factors that have improved are educational attainment, teenage crime levels and smoking in childhood and adolescence. He also explains that some indicators show improvements taking place but at a slower rate than in previous periods, or at a slower rate than might be expected in comparison with other countries. One example of such an indicator is infant mortality.
I believe that the report is of immense value. I hope that the Government will accept its findings in the spirit in which they have been given—namely, as a constructive contribution towards policy making relating to children in this country. It is UNICEF's
1068
view, and the Government's view as endorsed by Mrs Thatcher when she attended the World Summit for Children last September, that countries should follow a "first call for children" principle. This report plainly indicates that through the 1980s, as our economic situation worsened, Britain failed to follow that principle and failed to protect children from recession, the effects of unemployment, cuts in the welfare state and the effects of child benefit falling behind prices. Britain also failed to protect children from a deterioration in school meals, housing shortages and other problems.
In looking forward to the 1990s we must not fail these children again. We are now aware of the effects of unemployment on children. There is every indication that unemployment will rise again. We know the effects that poverty has. Therefore we must ensure that children's benefits are targeted, either directly through child benefit, or indirectly through enabling lone parents to work by providing good day care provision for their children.
The report calls for child-centred social security and fiscal policies. The Government should consider those matters seriously. The report also states that there is a need to develop a better mechanism for monitoring the state of children in the United Kingdom. That has often been called for in this House by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The Government have not done enough to develop such a mechanism.
Indeed, one of the first debates I ever opened in this House, as long ago as May 1982, was about how social and economic changes affect children. I hate to say "I told you so", but then too there was every indication that the poverty of children would increase, and that we would not have a sufficiently effective monitoring mechanism to reveal what was happening to them. We need to know what is happening to children and when it happens. Children cannot wait. They have only one chance to develop to their full physical, mental and emotional potential, and surely it is our responsibility to make sure that all Britain's children get that chance.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I have a particular reason for thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for introducing this debate. She is the notable president of the United Nations Children's Fund, which used to be known as the United Nations International Emergency Fund. In this country UNICEF has a close relationship with the National Children's Bureau, of which I am president. In the past, UNICEF concentrated on the needs of children in third world countries. However, as the noble Baroness said, concern had been felt in the corridors of UNICEF that in the last few years the well-being of children was deteriorating in industrial countries.
Therefore, UNICEF, as the noble Baroness has told us, commissioned studies in 30 countries, concentrating on eight particular countries. Of those eight countries three have already published their papers: the United States of America from the University of Michigan; Italy from the University of Trento; and the United Kingdom. UNICEF

1069
commissioned the National Children's Bureau to carry out the study of child poverty and deprivation, and so, as the noble Baroness said, we have this book by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw. As the noble Baroness said, he is an expert on social policy at York University.
I shall not go into the details of all the tables in the book. The noble Baroness has already pointed to a number of points that the book brings out. From the point of view of deterioration in this country the work states that the number of children living in poverty has doubled, and that homelessness has doubled for various families. The number of children with long-standing illnesses has increased; nutritional standards have probably also deteriorated, compounded by the removal of standards for school dinners—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will have something to say about that—there were more teenage conceptions; and deaths due to solvents have increased.
But, on the other hand, a balance must be maintained. The book states that in this country in the last 10 years infant mortality has continued to decrease; there are fewer children in care numerically and as a proportion of all children; juvenile crime and the experience of custody has decreased; and there is some growth in the availability of places in nursery school and some forms of child care. But, my Lords, only some growth—I think not enough. There have been some increases in educational attainment among some children; pocket money has increased; smoking has been reduced; drinking has not increased; and, strangely enough, your Lordships may be astonished to hear that there is less television viewing. Children's rights were enhanced to some degree; there is better dental care for children; and relatively fewer dental problems. Therefore, there is a balance to be struck.
It should be noted also—and this is important—that there is a group of children in this country whose well-being has improved. I refer to the children of a family where there are two parents, where there is an owner-occupied house and where both parents can work and in some cases do work. This is so in the south of England, but it has to be said that the report points put that the lives of children in an unemployed or lone-parent family living in rented accommodation, and mostly in the inner cities and north of England, have deteriorated.
The study points to three areas: the economic area; the policy area; and I would say that the third area is the ethos of society. Under the economic area, as the noble Baroness stated, unemployment has risen. This has led to deprivation physically, mentally, and emotionally for a number of children.
From the point of view of policies, public expenditure has been cut back. We understand the reason for that, which is to try to get inflation down. But, as the noble Baroness said, it has affected the lives of children, particularly in the field of housing, when families live in one-room flats and bedsitters, as well as having other very difficult housing problems.
1070
I now come to the ethos of society. I do not think that the points I shall mention can be attributed to any one government; they are the responsibility of us all. The report shows that children of single parents, of divorced parents and of separated parents are greatly at risk. I speak from experience as a governor of two schools for disturbed children. The staff tell me that children are more emotionally disturbed now than they have been in the last 20 years. Some of the staff at the schools for which I am responsible, and in which I have a deep interest, have been there for 20 years so that they are able to judge. This is a very serious matter.
The state of a nation's children physically, educationally and emotionally, reflects the state of the nation. As the children grow to adulthood, the deprivation of assets manifest to the children in their youth shows itself in adult life. On an economic plane, we could save money in the long term, if in certain areas, this country cared more for its children. We could save money in the health service if we looked after the children's feeding and eating habits. Like other noble Lords, I refer to school dinners.
We could save money if children had proper nursery and creche facilities, so that mothers could work knowing that their children had an emotionally satisfying alternative. We could save money if we did not have the bed and breakfast situation. The present Minister of Housing is very well aware of this and is doing his best to remedy what has been a long standing problem.
We could save money if we had better services for our children on the penal side. Prisons are very expensive. I used to visit a prison, and when men were being discharged I spoke to them about how they should cope with their children when they went home after a term of imprisonment. After discussion, it always came back to the men saying, "If we had had a good child care service when we were young, and a stable family, we would not be here". I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that to keep a man in prison costs £330 a week.
I am quite sure that Professor Bradshaw—and I have talked to him about this—will agree with me that this book is valuable, but only as a signpost. It is not comprehensive, but it is a very good signpost.
I look back on the national child development study, which was carried out by the first director of the National Children's Bureau, a notable woman named Dr. Kellmer-Pringle. She and her research workers followed up until adulthood 98 per cent. of all children born between 3rd and 7th March 1958, and deductions were drawn based on that research. Those deductions were of immense value in formulating policies and in helping all those who work with children to know the difficulties and priorities where children were concerned.
Therefore I should like to recommend that the Government seriously consider setting up a second research project. It should differ in some ways from any other research project that has been carried out. We should ask the National Children's Bureau, with a

1071
government grant, to carry out the type of research which was done by Dr. Kellmer-Pringle, but with the added dimension that the cost of the recommendations should be put against the cost to the country if they were not carried out. I believe that that would be possible. I am not always looking at the fiscal side. But I believe that if research were to prove not only the needs of the children and where we are going wrong but also where we are losing out financially, we might have a great chance to improve the lot of the children in this country.
Therefore, I thank UNICEF; I pay tribute to the National Children's Bureau and to Professor Bradshaw for putting up this signpost; and I beg the Government to pursue a piece of in depth research of the kind that I have outlined.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the president and the chairman of UNICEF UK for both bringing before us and speaking on Professor Bradshaw's excellent report, which provides invaluable data on many aspects of children's lives. I shall concentrate on one aspect and in that respect shall follow the lead of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
I should like to adapt to apply to children the famous words of Sir Winston Churchill when he was Home Secretary in 1910. He said that the mood and temper of the public with regard to child poverty and deprivation—that is my adaptation—is one of the unfailing tests of civilisation in any country. Winston Churchill was speaking about crime and the treatment of criminals. However, I feel that his words apply equally to our treatment of poor and deprived children. I like to think that he would not object to my adaptation of his great words.
In the light of the Woolf and Tumim Reports or in the light of the Bradshaw Report on child poverty and deprivation, we cannot be very proud of our record on either crime and criminals or poor and deprived children. I propose to look at the Bradshaw Report from the point of view of juvenile crime. It is in that respect that I follow one part of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I am happy to cite and enlist in support the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. John Patten, as recently reported in The Times of 13th February this year. The report says that:
"The government is to seek to identify as small children those who are likely to become criminals by their teens in the hope of preventing them from drifting from deprivation and under-performance into truancy and later juvenile crime".
I applaud those words. On reading the Bradshaw Report, I find there invaluable information which would help Mr. Patten to identify, in his words:
"those children … that are at risk of turning into tomorrow's criminals".
He will find that the number of such children is between the lower estimate of 2 million (those in poverty and living in families on half the average wage or less) and the higher estimate of 3 million (those living at about the average income support level). That
1072
is a lot of children. It means that more than a quarter of our children are living in poverty. Mr. Patten will find—I quote his own words:
"The associations between unhappy homes, health problems, failure to thrive, under-performance at school and truancy with later offending are all too clear".
He will find that statement amply underpinned and reinforced in the report. He will also be encouraged to find that some of the remedies are clearly set out in the report.
Mr. Patten rightly sees the need for,
"more participation by local communities, local churches and others working in a coalition with the police, health visitors, social services and the voluntary sector".
However, the UNICEF report calls for,
"child-centred social security and fiscal policies".
I am sure that the Government see their way towards child-centred social security policies. I believe that Mr. Patten's utterance indicates that. However, I am not so confident that they are finding their way towards child-centred fiscal policies, without which there cannot be progress on any other front.
There is a glimmer of hope in the report. I refer to the educational achievement which is said to be improving. A huge effort needs to be made on the evidence of the report, by fiscal means not least, to help the most impoverished and deprived of our children—they represent one quarter of the total—if we are to achieve the admirable aims of Mr. Patten: to identify and attack most crime at its root in child poverty and deprivation. It is a striking fact that one quarter of our children are impoverished and deprived; and roughly one quarter of all offenders in 1986 were juveniles.
In order to illustrate the value of the report, that statistic has a striking value. It should urge the Government to proceed on the social security and fiscal fronts. The report will have great value in this country. It will have an even greater force when we are able to compare our record with those of other countries in the industrialised world.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for initiating the debate and drawing our attention to the excellent and challenging study and report by the National Children's Bureau.
The findings of the report demand the study and attention of all who are interested in the future for civilised living with happy children not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. My remarks will be brief because I consider the debate to be a necessary prefatory to the ongoing challenge to our values and principles, so compellingly argued in the report on child poverty and deprivation.
The report concerns action for children. It is about children's rights. However, it emphasises that rights without services are meaningless. That has been emphasised by my noble friend Lord Henderson. One of the parliamentary groups with which I am privileged to be associated is the all-party parliamentary group for children. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is a dedicated and hardworking chairman of that group. It has undertaken much needed and

1073
valuable work in Parliament in the cause of children's rights and happiness. Those rights and happinesses transcend party political stances. I am privileged to participate in the discussions. The group values highly the close association with the National Children's Bureau and warmly appreciates and welcomes the practical help that it receives.
I wish to quote what I consider to be a statement of principle from the report. On page 3 the introduction states:
"In any society, the state of children should be of primary concern—their well-being is not only an indication of a society 's moral worth, they are human capital, the most important resource for its national future".
Therefore we have an interest in making children happy and part of our community.
The report goes on to quote a speech given at the inaugural lecture of the George Thomas Society on 17th January 1990. It was stated:
"children must come first because children are our most sacred trust. They also hold the key to our future in a very practical sense. It will be their ideas and their resourcefulness which will help solve such problems as disease, famine and the threats to the environment and it is their ideas and their values which will shape the future character and culture of our nation. We need to do all we can to ensure that children enjoy their childhood against a background of secure and loving family life. That way, they can develop their full potential, grow up into responsible adults and become, in their turn, good parents."
I firmly support the principles contained in the speech. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships to hear that the speech was made by the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher. It issues a challenge and points out that we need a child-centred social policy. Such a policy is enshrined in that statement.
However, a statement printed on the back cover of the report reads:
"Child poverty in the UK has more than doubled during the 1980s. In this book, Professor Jonathan Bradshaw examines the impact of poverty on many aspects of children's lives including infant and childhood death, child development, homelessness, child abuse, truancy, educational attainment and juvenile crime".
How far removed is the practice from the precept? How far removed are the words from the reality of the situation that we face? That is a challenge that emerges from tie book.
Like all Members of this House, I too have the wider interests of all children in my heart. However, noble Lords will expect my direct interest to be with the welfare and happiness of all children in Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt that in view of the chronic high level of unemployment, the low level of family incomes and the preponderance of low-waged employment there are considerable degrees of child poverty and deprivation in the Province. In the absence of any up-to-date comparative study of the relevant facts, I am reluctant to make any assumptions about the degrees of poverty in Northern Ireland or indeed in other regions of the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, dealt with that aspect. This is not a complete report but a welcome signpost that we should value.
I have had reasonable and reliable contacts with a number of statutory and voluntary bodies directly involved in child care and family matters in Northern Ireland. Over the past four decades—and I have gone back 10, 20, 30 and 40 years —there have been
1074
considerable improvements as regards the impact of child poverty in Northern Ireland. That is a relevant comparison but it does not meet the essence of the truth of the situation because one is dealing only with poverty levels.
However, if the definition of deprivation includes the physical, mental behavioural and social well-being of children, then I am firmly convinced that there is no room for complacency in Northern Ireland or indeed in any region of the United Kingdom.
In Northern Ireland we still have strong family bonds. They help to maintain some of the better features and values of child care and development. However, there is evidence that some of those family bonds are being seriously eroded. There is an urgent need for concerted action by statutory and voluntary organisations concerned with children and family matters in order to confront those problems boldly and methodically. That is set out clearly in the principles of this report.
Today there are confronting children many new hazards and difficulties which range far wider than merely being caught in the poverty trap. Children in all strata of society are at risk. I mean children on the poverty line; those who are poor; children of workers and professional people and the well-to-do. Perhaps I may use a phrase used in a debate earlier today, "from the dustman to the duke". All children are deserving of care. I have seen many happy homes where parents are unemployed and poverty stricken but the children were treated in a loving and caring way. On the other hand, I have seen homes of rich people where children were looked on as chattels and the car and the holiday were more important than the child, who was left with a baby sitter.
When one speaks of the United Kingdom, one must always define it. I am talking about England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are differences of culture and approach to child and family matters, and they must be looked at in that light.
The problems and hazards for children stem from the breakdown in family life. I am not saying that children from one-parent families suffer, because I have seen many happy children who belong to such families. On the other hand, I have seen tremendous feuding in families with more than one child where relations were not good.
Violence in our society has contributed greatly to the outlook of children. That manifests itself in many ways —football hooliganism, joy riding (that is, car theft), drug abuse, gangster mobs; and, sadly in the Northern Ireland context, paramilitarism and terrorism. Terrorism is growing throughout the United Kingdom and other countries. That has a tremendous impact on the outlook and happiness of children.
There is much to be done regarding educational arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has already mentioned this matter. A child can glean much in relation to society from nursery schools, pre-school playgroups and primary schools if it is properly taught. More money is needed for schools for children in the early stages of development.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for giving way. When I visited

1075
Northern Ireland, I had the privilege of seeing the work done with children under five. I pay tribute to the very good work that is done in Northern Ireland for children under five.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I totally agree, and there are many examples of that. I am anxious that much more is required, as the noble Baroness has already said.
Turning to a serious side, in some of the work I do in Northern Ireland I have sadly had to cope with child abuse in both a physical and sexual context. I have been astonished and shaken that such things could exist within our society, and in Northern Ireland where religion dominates the whole ethos of society. There is widespread vicious and terrible depravity by parents, friends and by other relationships in that context. Sadly, children are caught up in that atmosphere. It is referred to in the book to which I have referred. It is not a subject I wish to extend and develop tonight. Unfortunately, the problem exists also in the United Kingdom.
New hazards and difficulties confronting many children today are far wider than simply being caught in the poverty trap. Children in all strata of our society are at risk from our society.
I close by referring to what I consider to be the priorities of need. There is a greater need for a state register of family nurses who will be required to visit all new born children and keep records of their general progress and the conditions under which they are being nourished or nurtured. That is important because it is not being done in the widespread way that it should be. The early stages when mother and other family members form a relationship with the new child should be carefully monitored. That is not an intrusion into the home; it is a statement of care by society for that new member of society.
There is a need for more registered child minders—to which I have already referred in regard to pre-school children—under proper supervision. There is a need for social workers, doctors and the police to promote agreed procedures for working together with children and families. There is a need for more appropriate and up-to-date training at all levels dealing with children and families.
I conclude by quoting Jonathan Bradshaw in his book. He says,
"If we can identify way in which the well-being of children has failed to make progress then it gives us targets to aim at in the 1990s and beyond".
Those are worthwhile objectives and targets presented to us by Jonathan Bradshaw.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for asking this unstarred Question. I also express my admiration for her stamina in initiating and participating in such a wide variety of debates on such a wide spectrum of crucially important topics. The subject before us is no exception.
I agree with other noble Lords that this is a balanced and useful report. I agree with the name given to it by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, when she described it as a "signpost". I do not believe that Professor
1076
Bradshaw would object to that. It is not an exhaustive treatise. He usefully covers a wide field in a short report. As other noble Lords said, while it describes some trends which should give us grave concern, there are others which are more comforting. Some show improvement but at a slower rate than in a number of other countries.
I should like to consider one of the indicators—the infant mortality rate—in more detail and perhaps invite other noble Lords to consider the matter with me. At first sight it looks like a major success story in Britain. Between 1961 and 1985—over 24 years—the rate fell from 22 to 9.5 deaths per 1,000 live and still births. That is something which, if it had been viewed from the early 1960s, would have astonished some of us who were working in child health at that time. From 1985 the fall levelled off considerably. For the first time since the 1930s, in 1986 the infant mortality rate went up—by 0.1 per 1,000. It is interesting to note that that was the year when we had maximum unemployment.
At the moment the figures have resumed their downward trend, standing at 8.4 which seems quite amazing but during the past decade at least 10 other countries have caught up and passed us. The countries concerned include those which we would not normally have thought of as particularly advanced such as Spain, Italy and Eire. Among the Western industrialised countries only the USA has a rate which is higher than ours at 9.6. That is largely because of their large sections of black people in the South and Indian populations on reservations where there is a very much lower standard of life. Japan has achieved the extremely low rate of only five deaths per 1,000.
As I pointed out in the debate on the National Health Service about two weeks ago, this lag in Britain is because our average level is increased by the higher rate among disadvantaged families and some immigrant ethnic groups. The rate is higher in certain regions such as the North, the North-West and South Wales. I do not think that that situation applies in Northern Ireland despite my noble friend's statement that there is deprivation there. Other factors also operate there.
If our infant mortality rate in 1986 had been equal to that of Sweden, it has been calculated by the Department of Health and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that 2,247 children who died would not have done so. There are a number of ways in which this problem could be tackled. For example, as Professor Bradshaw points out, prematurity and low birth weight are two of the main causes of early infant deaths. They are directly related to the health, nutritional and smoking status of the mother. Some of those factors are within the power of health workers to influence. Intensive antenatal care can make a difference. That needs a greater concentration of preventive health workers in areas of deprivation. They need to be skilled, receptive and adaptable to the wishes, needs and the customs of the communities concerned. But beyond that first aid work, the economic, nutritional and educational status of the people in pockets of deprivation needs to be faced in order to permanently achieve good results.
I shall now look at child health in a wider aspect. First I wish to consider those who are handicapped.

1077
There are now fewer abortions for fetal abnormality because we have largely eliminated the rubella syndrome by immunising teenage girls. However, abortions for spina bifida and Down's syndrome have increased. That has led to a lower proportion of births with severe handicap. Paradoxically, a greater proportion of those born with handicaps survive into childhood and adult life because of better medical and surgical treatment. Therefore, there is an increased number of chronically handicapped children in the community suffering, for example, from cystic fibrosis, congenital heart disease, spina bifida, muscular dystrophy or cerebral palsy. These children are likely to be disadvantaged not simply because of their handicap but also because their families will be poorer—because of the increased costs in time and money devoted to caring for them. In particular, the mother, or possibly the father, may not be able to go out to work to bring in what may be a first income for a single parent or a second income which may be the key to a reasonable standard of life for many people.
Sadly, over the past 15 years, the number of children who attend general practitioners or who are hospital outpatients has steadily gone up instead of coming down, as we might have hoped. That is partly because of the increased number of handicapped survivors, and visits to health institutions are more onerous for poorer parents who are usually reliant on public transport.
I turn next to nutrition. There is still a difference in the height of young adults according to social class. This has not changed in recent years, suggesting that poorer nutrition or more illness—which can also lower nutritional status—or both, exist in those of lower social class. That all is not well in child nutrition was brought home by the Department of Health survey of schoolchildren's diets which was finally published in 1989, although the results were known for some years previously. Three-quarters of children have a higher than recommended fat intake. Higher consumption of chips occurs among children of lower social class and among those whose fathers are unemployed. Too many calories come from biscuits, cakes and fatty meat products—sausages, hamburgers and pies. Many diets are deficient in iron, zinc, folic acid and vitamin C. All of these have social class trends.
That does not mean to say, following my noble friend's statement, that everything in the garden in well off families is wonderful. Some people from all social classes have peculiar ideas about food. The commonly consumed diets, as found in the study, lead to obesity, especially since the physical activity of children is decreasing, and can lead to anaemia in girls who need more iron than boys. There is increasing evidence that nutrition in early childhood and even possibly before birth—in utero—is of crucial importance to the development of the cardio vascular system, the heart and circulation, and the central nervous system, which implies intellectual functioning.
Several studies, especially that of Professor Barker of Southampton, have shown that a relatively deprived childhood can lead to an increased risk of coronary heart disease in adult life. This may be one of the major reasons for the correlation of low social class with high coronary heart disease mortality. Those of us who are
1078
interested in the prevention of coronary heart disease, which is the number one killer of men before retirement and of women after retirement, are acutely aware of the importance of childhood nutrition in the genesis of what is a chronic, very slowly developing, condition. By middle age it may be too late to do anything about it; certainly it is too late to prevent it.
Equally, if not more important, is the effect of very early nutrition on brain development. Work by Professor Michael Crawford and Wendy Doyle of the Institute of Brain Chemistry, comparing the size and head circumference of babies born in Hampstead and Hackney, found that the Hackney babies included a significantly higher proportion weighing less than 2,500 grams, a level below which intellectual impairment starts to become measurable and more frequent.
Low birth weight is related to social and economic disadvantages, as I have mentioned. It is not surprising that we find that Hackney has the highest Jarman index of social deprivation. That is the index used to calculate payment to GPs to compensate for the extra workload in deprived areas. Hackney has the highest index of social deprivation in the country.
That shows that not all the deprived communities are in the north.
On the converse side of the question, and also of the world, there are studies which show that Japanese children have significantly better IQ scores than European or American children of the same age. Infant mortality in Japan is the lowest in the world and by implication fetal health is the highest. In the light of those findings I should like to echo the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in asking the Minister seriously to consider reintroducing the nutritional standards for school meals which were abolished in 1982. There is also a strong case for reintroducing subsidised school meals, providing nutritionally well-balanced and attractive meals—I assure noble Lords that the two qualities are not incompatible—and to work out systems which give incentives to children to take those meals. Giving children money to spend on their lunch, either on or off school premises, with no incentive to eat nutritious rather than purely calorific food has proved disastrous, as the Department of Health study has shown. To do this will cost a little more—not much more—than giving families on family credit or income supplement extra money for school meals, as is now the case. I suggest that this whole area should be looked at again at a high level because of its crucial importance in improving the health and nutrition of current and future generations.
I have one final point. I concur with the last paragraph of Professor Bradshaw's book in which he specifically asks for better mechanisms for monitoring the state of children in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will take particular care to implement that section of the book.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, like the noble Baroness whose Unstarred Question we are addressing this evening, I too am closely associated with the work of the United Nations Children's Fund. The noble Baroness is president of the national committee in this

1079
country and I am its chairman. We can therefore speak with some knowledge about the background to the report prepared by Professor Bradshaw. It is the international aspect of the report on which I should particularly like to speak since I believe that the relationship between the report and the wider work of UNICEF is important if its full significance is to be understood.
During the past two years there has been much activity in the field of international child welfare. In 1989 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child which has now entered into force. This convention has been signed by our Government. As the Minister of Health informed the conference held jointly by UNICEF and the National Children's Bureau last month, the Government intend to ratify the convention as soon as possible. Six months after the convention was adopted by the General Assembly in New York, the annual meeting of the executive board of UNICEF which I attended in New York set a new series of targets for child survival and for the protection of children and their welfare. The targets are ambitious. For example, the global plan is to reduce the mortality rate of children under five by one-third, and the maternal mortality rate by one-half by the year 2000. But if those targets are ambitious they are also necessary, and are possible if the required effort, skill and resources are applied.
In September last the World Summit for Children made its uniquely authoritative contribution by endorsing and supporting both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the goals agreed by the UNICEF executive board. The heads of state and government gave a firm commitment in their final declaration and plan of action. The latter document stated:
"Each country is encouraged to re-examine in the context of its national plans, programme and policies, how it might accord a higher priority to programmes for the well-being of children in general".
That is the origin of Professor Bradshaw's report. The report is the first of a whole series of documents which examine the situation of children in eight industrialised countries. It was commissioned on behalf of UNICEF by the National Children's Bureau in order to provide the best possible survey of the evidence. The only purpose of the document is to help children: it is not intended as a criticism of any particular authority, rather it should be seen as an important step forward. It is a factual survey which forms part of a worldwide movement which is intended to improve the position of children; that is, their health, their education and their very survival in every country, including our own.
It is also worth noting that the particular organ of UNICEF which was responsible for the report is the Child Development Centre at Florence in Italy. Since its foundation the centre has devoted special attention to the difficulties experienced by children in the industrialised countries. Hitherto, UNICEF's work has been concentrated on helping children in the greatest need. So far, that has meant working mainly in the third world where the most formidable problems of
1080
disease and public health are to be found. But in recent years it has become clear that many industrialised countries are facing anew the problems they experienced in the past century; for example, problems of sanitation, disease, education and homelessness. We in Britain are by no means unique among the industrialised nations in that respect. Indeed, other countries are confronted with such problems and often for quite similar reasons; for example, rapid economic and social change, immigration, and so on.
I therefore suggest to your Lordships that the document to which this Question refers needs to be read with two aspects in mind: first, that it is part of a global survey; and, secondly, that it is related to UNICEF's growing awareness of the special difficulties facing children in the industrialised countries. I hope that we in this country will be able to take a further step later this year in accordance with another passage in the summit declaration of last September.
Paragraph 34 of the plan of action attached to the declaration urged all governments to prepare a national programme of action to implement the commitments undertaken at the meeting, country by country. It was with that object in view that the National Children's Bureau—I greatly acknowledge the very helpful role played by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in this respect—and UNICEF held a joint meeting on 30th January at which they presented the outline for such a programme in this country. At that meeting the Minister of Health made an admirable speech on behalf of the Government. However, I do not think that Mrs. Bottomley made any specific statement about the national plan. It would be helpful, therefore, if the noble Viscount could tell us a little more about the Government's attitude on the issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mentioned an important point of detail concerning statistics. It is a curious feature of political debate in Britain at present that there is an argument about the quality and range of our national statistics. It will be noted that Professor Bradshaw made some remarks on the subject in his report. I do not want to venture into the more general controversy, but I suggest to the Government that we need a series of reliable, continuous and informative figures which give us a consistent factual basis so as to permit a careful formulation of policy. Here too we are not alone in our difficulties in the presenting of such difficulties and the plan of action approved by the summit last year included a paragraph—34(v)—on that subject, emphasising the need for
"regular and timely collection, analysis and publication of data"
required to monitor the situation of children. If, as I hope, the Government devote some further thought to that subject it might be worthwhile discussing the range and type of statistics needed with the UNICEF Innocenti Centre at Florence, to which I have just referred. It would be especially helpful to a have a statistical series which is common to all the major industrialised countries so as to permit comparisons and the opportunity to learn from the experience of others. UNICEF has considerable knowledge of those

1081
matters and the statistical tables published annually in its State of the World's Children report are the most authoritative data that we have.
There are few, if any, causes more worthy of support than this one. The human instinct to protect and help children is happily both strong and universal. As one who works for an organisation such as UNICEF—the world's leading international agency for child welfare—I am conscious of that fact. I am proud to know that UNICEF is at the moment able to help the children of Iraq at the time of their greatest need, despite the fighting going on there; indeed, in one way because of it. That cause—helping children—cuts across every frontier of nations, race or of religion. It is a cause which unites all who are engaged in it. Of course national governments still bear the heaviest responsibility, but in many instances governments are not themselves directly responsible for some of the most intractable problems which have arisen—for example, the extraordinary growth of international migration which has created a whole series of problems affecting children; especially disease, housing and education. Nor can governments be fairly taken to task for the widespread
1082
breakdown in the institution of marriage and for the growing number of lone parents, both of which can have a profound effect on children.
There are some terrifying statistics in Professor Bradshaw's report. For example, on page 22 he gives the estimate that by the year 2000 only half of all children born in this country will spend their childhood with their natural parents. The consequences of such tragedies seem inevitably to end up as part of the responsibility of governments, however much the international agencies and national charities try to help. That help is valuable, but it cannot suffice on its own.
I recently attended a meeting of the national committees of UNICEF in Geneva. There was widespread admiration for the work that we have done in this country in following up last year's summit meeting. It was said by some of those present that the British had shown the way for others to follow by publishing Professor Bradshaw's excellent report and by suggesting to our government the outline of a national plan. I hope that our authorities will now be able to build fully upon what we have done for children.
10.9 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for introducing the debate and for inducing me to read Professor Bradshaw's excellent report, which I should have read a long time ago. I am glad to have done so now.
One conclusion that I draw from the report is that it should be recognised that children in this country are becoming a scarce resource. Since the 1970s, according to his statistics, the birth rate has been slightly below the replacement rate. As employers are now just beginning to realise, we have a shortage of young people in this country. It becomes more important when we cannot afford to waste the ones that we have.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that there are good features in the report. Some of the statistics which relate to all children are quite encouraging. However, the overall pattern also shows the picture that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, demonstrated in the infant mortality figures. There are pockets of deprivation—pockets so large that one wonders whether the word is quite the correct one to use.
This is not an occasion on which to enter into a long, semantic discussion of precisely what constitutes poverty. The evidence on which I rely most as indicating that a high proportion of our children live at a lower level than they should is the income support figures. In the reign of Elizabeth I, when our first social security system—if I may so call it—was being put together, a consensus rapidly emerged between the parish and municipal authorities. It was that the maximum proportion of the population which could be supported on relief was in the region of 5 per cent.
I admit that with a larger gross national product we can aim at a rather higher figure. However, how much higher a figure? The figures that we have now are considerably higher. On Professor Bradshaw's figures, one in seven of our population is now on income support. I make that 14.3 per cent., including 1 million children out of 11.5 million children under 16. That is in the region of 9 per cent.—a very much higher figure than it ought to be.
There are pockets in the British Isles, some of them again very large indeed, where the figures are much higher than that. According to a Written Answer given in another place at col. 578 of Hansard by Mrs. Shephard on 31st October 1990, the proportion of children in Scotland dependent on income support is 22 per cent. That compares with a proportion dependent on supplementary benefit in 1979 of 8 per cent. and falling. That is a dramatic change. It is perhaps something for which one government can be held responsible.
I also entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that there are other factors in the picture, notably the problem of single parents. These are much wider social trends than any for which we should blame one single government. However, on the economic front there are some things which must rest at the door of one government. There are also particular bad points which need thought. The
1084
problem of children in bed and breakfast accommodation is one which we debated during the passage of the social security Bills of 1989 and 1990. We heard considerable evidence of malnutrition. I was delighted with the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, held out to us that something may happen about that. I shall be very pleased when it does.
We also need to think about schools. For a long time schools have represented an avenue of escape from deprivation, a means of social mobility to which I have heard many noble Lords in this House pay tribute with a personal gratitude. That depends on it being possible in any area of the country to find a school which can get a pupil through to university and beyond. I am not sure whether that is still the case.
There is the problem of the numerous areas where there is no teacher. There is also the problem of school books; children having to take A-levels without the books is even worse than them having to do without teachers. On Professor Bradshaw's figures, spending on books and equipment for secondary school children has fallen by 24.2 per cent. since 1979. To take an example of what that fall might mean, I must tell noble Lords that when I came back from the United States in 1984 I considered buying a house in Clapham. It occurred to me to ask what was going on in the local schools. In what seemed to be regarded as the best school, I discovered that in an intake of 170, one single A-level pass had been scored in one subject. If I had sent my children to that school, I would have written them off academically for life. That is a case of an avenue of social mobility which is being closed off and is thus making deprivation lasting.
Rather than continuing to point out that there is a problem —that seems to me to be clear enough—it is worth thinking about the causes and about some possible remedies. That stretches far beyond the areas of anything that can be identified simply as child poverty. It stretches far beyond the areas for which the Department of Social Security can be held responsible. It seems that by far the most important factor in this problem is unemployment.
I have clearly in the past done the Government an injustice. I thought they were responsible for only 19 changes in the method of calculating the unemployment figures. However, I have discovered from Professor Bradshaw that the figure is 27 changes. I was interested to note that Professor Bradshaw, using the old method of calculation, produced a figure for unemployment in May 1990 which came to 2.5 million. The income support figures seem to me to make that figure credible. Unemployment is very expensive for the Government as well as being socially destructive.
We should also think about the problem of part-time work. In that context I wish to express my regret that I was prevented from taking part in the debate initiated yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. In the little part of that debate that I was able to attend, I heard that about 25 per cent. of our workforce is now working part-time, and that nearly 90 per cent. of those working part-time are women. A great many of those women are responsible

1085
for children and a fair proportion of them are solely responsible for children. The pay of part-time workers in this country is often extremely low. I know that a case can be argued in favour of that in terms of keeping down industrial costs, and on the grounds that the job might not exist if the costs were not kept down. However, I believe this is a case where one must say that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If employers employ employees on a wage that is not a living wage, they are simply asking the Department of Social Security to subsidise the job.
There may be cases where a job should be subsidised for a recognised and useful motive. However, used simply as a blanket subsidy, I am not sure that that is a useful way of spending money. Employers should pay the economic cost of a job. We should think a great deal more about the pay, national insurance and social security benefits of part-time workers. The European Community has been quite right to draw our attention to that problem. The same goes for the problem of low wages. I shall not elaborate on that, as I believe the points that need to be made are much the same as those I have just made.
I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about child care. That is absolutely vital to the relief of child poverty, which is something that cannot be achieved except by enormous public expenditure or by giving the mother an opportunity to earn an adequate wage knowing that her child is cared for. A regard for child care is vital to doing anything about the whole problem.
I shall not elaborate on the argument about child benefit. We have heard most of the points before. I remember our discussions on board and lodging in bed and breakfast accommodation in the 1989 and 1990 Social Security Acts. Those discussions showed up very clearly the vital part that child benefit plays in most mothers' incomes, particularly if they have large numbers of children. That is something that must not be lost sight of. If it is lost sight of, the medical and other costs resulting from deprivation may, in the end, wipe out a considerable part of the saving.
There is another point on the quality of life theme that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, introduced. We should think about the effect of the motor car on children. There was research reported about a couple of weeks ago, I think by Dr. Adams at University College. This pointed out that in terms of mobility most children are more restricted now than their predecessors were 20 years ago. This is largely the result of the spread of the motor car and the danger of traffic.
I remember the shock of discovering when I lived in the United States that once I went off to work and took the car my children were not able to go anywhere at all. If you consider the problem of bad behaviour by children in the United States which exists, a great deal of it is the result of boredom because they cannot come and go and take an interest in anything. Therefore, we should think about keeping available public transport on which certainly older children can travel, do something interesting, and occupy themselves in a constructive way.
1086
There is of course also the problem of single parents. I am not going to anticipate any of the debates on the Child Support Bill. We are going to hear enough about that before the Bill is completed. But I will say that it would be a mistake to regard that Bill as a complete solution to the problem of poverty among single parents. Especially where we have two families, a first family and a step family, we may be simply shifting money from one to the other; relieving poverty in one only at the price of creating it in another.
We shall not do anything about this until we have a much higher proportion of parents in regular employment and properly paid, and we shall not be able to do anything about raising benefit levels in any constructive way until we have rather fewer people on those benefits. The root evil of all this, in my opinion, is unemployment, and I believe the Treasury, quite as much as mothers, has an interest in making sure that it comes down.
10.23 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for giving the House the chance to discuss this vitally important topic and the excellent report produced for UNICEF. I think we can all agree that one of the best tests of the quality of life in a society is the way in which it looks after its children. They, of all people, have no say and no choice about the circumstances in which they are reared.
As I read Professor Bradshaw's report and the many other documents I have received in connection with this debate, I could not help wondering about all those involved from all parties with the creation of the post-war welfare state based on that old fashioned word "consensus"—and I speak here of people like Rab Butler, Harold Macmillan and Iain Macleod, as well as Clem Attlee and Nye Bevan. Would they have believed that it would be remotely possible that 45 years after the end of the Second World War, and after a decade in which the real income of the working population has increased by about a fifth and in which living standards for the majority have substantially increased, that an independent report in response to an agency of the United Nations would conclude, and I quote from page 51 of the report:
"During the 1980s children have borne the brunt of the changes that have occurred in the economic conditions, demographic structure and social policies of the United Kingdom. More children have been living in low income families and the number of children living in poverty has doubled. Inequalities have also become wider. There is no evidence that improvements in the living standards of the better off have 'trickled down' to low income families with children?"
Therefore, we have to ask ourselves what has gone so badly wrong with our social policies to bring about this state of affairs. I have to say that I found the response to the report by Mr. Tony Newton, the Secretary of State for Social Security, rather depressing. I fear that there is a combination of complacency and arcane argument about the definition of poverty in his letter of 16th January this year to the secretary of the National Children's Bureau.

1087
I do not propose to go into great detail on the various statistical arguments. However we define poverty, we can all surely agree that, as a matter of simple observation, there is more poverty in our society. I ask your Lordships to think back only 12 years. We just did not have the numbers of beggars, homeless, lone parents and families living in squalor and bed and breakfast accommodation and the other aspects of poverty which now disfigure our society.
I do not apportion blame here. The 1980s has been a decade in which, for the first time since the war and perhaps even further back than that, the rich have become relatively richer and the poor relatively poorer. This shift in wealth has not been accidental. It is a result of deliberate government policy.
The total burden of taxation—income tax, national insurance contributions, indirect taxes, the poll tax and the rest—has slightly increased as a percentage of GDP. But the proportion of direct taxation, income tax, has gone down, while per contra the proportion of indirect taxation has gone up. That can only mean that the rich must get proportionately richer, and they have. Reductions in income tax have been worth a cumulative £27 billion.
If we take the tax and social security changes since 1979, the bottom 50 per cent. have lost nearly £8.50 a week, while the top 10 per cent. have gained £40 a week. Fifty-seven per cent. of families have lost out, while 40 per cent. of families in the top income brackets have gained. It seems that far from a "trickle down" the Government have achieved a geographical impossibility of a "flood upwards".
What has all this to do with child poverty?—simply this. As a direct result—not an accidental result—of the Government's combination of taxation and social policy, the relevant social security benefits have fallen from 37 per cent. of net disposable income to 30 per cent. At the same time, as my noble friend has pointed out, the number of children in families receiving those benefits has doubled with over 2 million children now dependent on income support.
But what the statistics do not reveal at all adequately is the situation of families which are just above the poverty line—those not really picked up all that well in the statistics. They have been hit hardest by the decision since 1987 to freeze child benefit. Nothing encapsulates better the Government's social policy than the recent decision to increase child benefit by £1 per week for the first child, so that the rich family with one child receives exactly the same increase in weekly income as the poor family with three or four children.
There is one point that has not been mentioned in the debate. There is a tendency to think about the general problem of poverty, and particularly child poverty, as a problem of the urban and the inner city areas. That is incorrect. The report to the Department of the Environment in 1985 which was quoted in Faith in the Countryside—the report of the Archbishop's commission on rural areas—indicated that about 25 per cent. of households in rural areas were living in or
1088
on the margins of poverty. There is indeed much child poverty in rural areas and I shall quote two examples to substantiate that point.
Action for Communities in Rural England recently completed a housing study for the Rural Development Commission which showed that there are 376,000 cases of housing need in rural areas, with all that means for child poverty. A district council that I know well in a rural area in the South West had a budget for bed and breakfast in the mid-1980s of the order of £6,000 per annum. By the end of the decade, the budget was £90,000. That is the situation in one small district council in a rural area.
The lack of affordable homes to rent or buy, with all that means for child poverty, is undoubtedly the biggest social problem in the countryside. I often surprise the farming audiences to which I speak when I say that the biggest social problem in the countryside is not the state of farm incomes but the lack of affordable homes to rent or buy.
We can all agree that child poverty is truly a national problem, which obviously requires a national policy implemented through the right combination of taxation and social policy. I make no apology from this Dispatch Box for outlining the next Labour government's policies to deal with child poverty. After all, if we have attacked the Government for their record in this matter, and that attack is supported by this report, I think that it is only fair to put forward our proposals to deal with the problem.
We shall restore the real value of child benefit. That will do more to help reduce poverty among children than almost anything else that we could do. I repeat: we shall restore the real value of child benefit. We shall give back to local authorities their key role as both providers and enablers in increasing the supply of affordable homes. We shall provide a nursery place for all three and four year-olds whose parents wish it. We shall provide affordable child care in the community. We shall introduce a national legal hourly minimum wage - a point in relation to the wages problem that was touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Russell -and we shall require strict enforcement of the equal pay laws.
Indeed, we have described our policies as a charter for children. It will certainly not all happen overnight, other than the increase in child benefit; it will happen over time and as resources allow. I fear that a decade of neglect cannot be put right overnight just by waving a magic wand. But I am certain that a decade of a Labour government will not result in a report which shows conclusively that the burden of the Government's taxation and social policy has sadly been borne by those least able to bear it: our children.
10.32 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this report tonight. I listened with great interest to the speeches made by noble Lords with their wealth of experience in these matters. As noble Lords will be aware, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Henley, would normally reply. But I am delighted to be able to

1089
say that he is not here tonight because from now on he will be collecting an extra child benefit for a new daughter. I am sure that we all wish them well.
I turn back to the report. If I may say so, the report demonstrates the difficulty of trying to define a simple "poverty line" with poor people on one side and those who are not poor on the other. It is precisely for that reason that no government in this country, irrespective of political persuasion, have ever accepted that a single or simple "poverty line" can be drawn. A line fixed at, or around, the benefit level has the paradoxical effect of increasing the number of poor people whenever the benefits are increased. If we were to fix such a line the logical conclusion is that you could reduce the numbers living in poverty by simply cutting benefit.
We were therefore rather surprised to see the author dismiss one poverty line on the grounds that it is "intuitively wrong" in favour of another equally arbitrary one at 110 per cent. of the supplementary benefit level. Can that be any less "intuitively wrong"?
The report also states that there were more children living below 110 per cent. of the supplementary benefit level between 1979 and 1985 but that "only" 45 per cent. are accounted for by real increases in benefits. Looked at another way, the report is confirming precisely what we have always argued—that almost half the increase is attributable to real increases in the level of benefits.

During the period covered by the report unemployment was increasing before it reached a peak in 1986. Clearly that unemployment played a part in increasing the numbers living at benefit levels. Another growth area was the large increase in numbers of lone parents. The numbers dependent on supplementary benefit grew from 318,000 in 1979 to 603,000 in 1986. Approximately two thirds of all lone parents now claim income support compared with around 40 per cent. claiming supplementary benefit in 1979.
My noble friend raised the issue of the children of lone parents. We share that concern. It is because of our concern for the children in lone parent families that we have developed a comprehensive strategy, including proposals for enforcement and collection of maintenance, benefit improvements for lone parents and better work incentives. Their overall effect should be to make it easier for lone parents to work if they want to and thus be better off.
The report also comments on the growth in numbers of children living in households with incomes below the average or below half the average, but ignores the very significant growth in average income itself. Any statement about the numbers living on incomes below a proportion of the average is simply incomplete without any reference to that overall growth.
Another way to look at that is to compare the numbers of dependent children living in households below half average income (before housing costs) held constant in real terms. In 1979 there were 1·31 million children in households below half average income. By 1987 the number below the real value of half 1979 income had fallen to 780,000.
1090
Since the main years referred to in the report the Government have made a number of improvements. The social security reforms in 1988 were born of a recognition that social security had lost its way and our understanding of what the system should be seeking to achieve had become obscured. The reforms meant that a simpler system could enable resources to be focused on those who most needed them.
The introduction of family credit in 1988 enabled significant progress to be made in directing resources to families with children. Family credit now provides a substantial tax free weekly cash payment to boost the incomes of around 325,000 working families. The average weekly award now stands at over £30 a week, with awards of £40 and £50 by no means uncommon. Planned expenditure for 1991–92 on family credit amounts to some £543 million compared with £180 million spent on its predecessor, family income supplement, in 1987–88.
Since the reforms we have been able to improve benefits for families with children even further. In April 1989 all of the children's rates in the income-related benefits were increased by 50p over and above the normal uprating. In April 1990 there were further real increases of 50p in the family premium for income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit and £1 in the adult rate of family credit. The lone parent premium in housing benefit and community charge benefit were also increased in real terms as were the disability premiums.
Overall extra help through income-related benefits is now worth around £400 million a year more in real terms compared with the position before the 1988 social security reforms. That is real extra help to those who most need it.
We also provide help through social security to all families with children. Child benefit continues to provide a worthwhile contribution for all families towards the cost of bringing up children. We have made it clear that child benefit is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support. From April this year, we are increasing the rate of child benefit for the eldest eligible child in each family by £1 to £8·25 a week. This increase recognises that at all income levels families with children incur additional expenditure which those without children do not face. This increase will go to nearly 7 million families at a gross cost of around £360 million a year.
Turning now to health aspects, the report acknowledges that the reductions in infant and perinatal mortality that have taken place over the past decade are impressive. However, this improvement does not give grounds for complacency. The Government have asked regional health authorities to give particular attention to maternity and neonatal services and to set targets for improvement over the coming year.
The report from the Chief Medical Officer's Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, The Diets of British Schoolchildren, published in 1989, showed that children in all social classes were well nourished, being on average both taller and heavier than ever before and with adequate or more than

1091
adequate intakes of nutrients. This report gave cause for concern in relation to the consumption of too much fat by more than three-quarters of schoolchildren and the need for certain groups, notably 14 to 15 year-old schoolgirls, to increase their intakes of iron, calcium and vitamin B2.
Many local education authorities are already modifying their guidelines on the provision of school meals—a subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea—to meet the Department of Health's standards on healthy eating. Our monitoring of schoolchildren shows that on average they are receiving adequate levels of nutrients. Of course we shall consider carefully the points raised by the noble Lord.
We fully recognise the relationship between nutrition and health, and continue to encourage increasing consumer education and awareness of the benefits to be gained from eating a healthy, balanced diet. We focus particularly on schoolchildren because sensible eating habits need to be started early in life. This is not something just for government. Most of us, as parents or grandparents, have a role to play too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, raised the question of immunisation certificates being presented at schools. I cannot answer her question tonight but I shall look into the matter and write to her.
We do, of course, agree with the conclusion of the report that educational attainment is one of the indicators that suggests that things have improved. The report quite rightly says that expenditure on education has risen in real terms; that class sizes have fallen; and that public examination results and staying-on rates have improved. The Government's substantial programme of education reforms will ensure that the position will further improve. But the statement in the report that thousands of children in poorer inner city areas are unable to go to school is simply untrue.
As regards the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about education, I must point out that spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools rose from £515 in 1979–80 to £1,360 in 1988–89. That is a real-term increase of more than 40 per cent. The noble Earl mentioned—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. Are those real terms in relation to the retail prices index or to the rising price of books?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Earl would allow me to finish he might have the answer. He mentioned books in particular. Spending on books and equipment in primary and secondary schools rose from £20 per pupil in 1979–80 to nearly £50 in 1988–89. That is a real-term increase of nearly 30 per cent.
The Government provide help with day care through the funding of many organisations in the voluntary sector. That point was made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. The Government have also commissioned research on the need for day-care facilities in order to develop our knowledge and understanding, so we are by no means complacent in this matter.
1092
The report concludes by suggesting that new information should be collected to monitor the lives of children. I should like to reassure the House that the Government continue to look for the best ways to monitor the impact of their policies.
A key development in monitoring the health of the population has been the appointment of directors of public health. Each district health authority has appointed its own director of public health with responsibility for assessing the health needs of the local population. Services are being provided to meet these needs and to be more responsive to patients requirements.
We publish various statistics and statistical analyses such as Households Below Average Income. These figures do have limitations because they are snapshots, or perhaps signposts, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull said. They show what is happening to people at one particular time but they cannot show how those same people fare over a longer period of time. That is why we are putting financial support into the British household panel study carried out at the University of Essex. That will provide income and other data for a group of people over time. It will mean that their circumstances, whether on or off benefit, and what happens to their children, will be available. We are also commissioning work to look at the feasibility of using Department of Social Security administrative and other records to provide information about changes in income over time. I know that many noble Lords have made that point this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked me to add to the speech made by my honourable friend the Minister for Health. I am not in a position to do that, but I shall ensure that what has been said this evening is drawn to her attention.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull made an interesting point about future research. I hope that what I have said will convince her of our serious approach to monitoring the effects of our policies. I shall ensure that her comments on the national child development study and how it might be carried forward are considered fully.
The Government believe that this is a useful and interesting report which encourages everyone to think about children and the family. We are not complacent, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that our record, which I have just outlined, demonstrates our commitment to the family and our recognition of the importance of ensuring that children have the right start in life.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, he has painted a rosy picture of the past 10 years. Can he assure me that the Government take on board the relentless rise in the number of beggars, homeless people, families in bed and breakfast accommodation, criminals (including juveniles) and single-parent families? Has that reached government thinking?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord raises some points which are not covered in this evening's debate or the report. However, we shall consider many of the points raised by the noble Lord.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he assure me that what he said does not mean that the Government reject all Professor Bradshaw's criticisms as untrue and all the report's proposals as unnecessary?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we do not reject all the criticisms. However, we do not agree with some aspects of the report. I said that we believe that it is a useful and interesting report. We shall look carefully at all the matters that it raises.
House adjourned twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

  WEST BANK AND GAZA: CURFEW
  WEST BANK AND GAZA: CURFEW
  PARTIAL TEST BAN TREATY AMENDMENT CONFERENCE
  PARTIAL TEST BAN TREATY AMENDMENT CONFERENCE
  UN SECURITY COUNCIL: PRIVATE MEETINGS
  UN SECURITY COUNCIL: PRIVATE MEETINGS
  POLICE PAY: OVERTIME
  POLICE PAY: OVERTIME
  PRISON RULES: SCOTLAND
  PRISON RULES: SCOTLAND
  OVERSEAS MEDICAL STUDENTS
  OVERSEAS MEDICAL STUDENTS
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  HOME LOSS PAYMENTS
  HOME LOSS PAYMENTS
  LAND COMPENSATION AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE LEGISLATION: CONSULTATION
  LAND COMPENSATION AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE LEGISLATION: CONSULTATION
  INCENTIVE GRANTS TO TENANTS
  INCENTIVE GRANTS TO TENANTS
  PLANNING APPEALS
  PLANNING APPEALS
  THE GULF WAR: AIR ATTACKS ON BUILT -UP AREAS
  THE GULF WAR: AIR ATTACKS ON BUILT -UP AREAS
  THE GULF WAR: OIL POLLUTION
  THE GULF WAR: OIL POLLUTION
  TORNADO AIRCRAFT SPARES
  TORNADO AIRCRAFT SPARES
  RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOANS: PREVENTION OF SERVICE TYING-IN
  RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOANS: PREVENTION OF SERVICE TYING-IN
  ESTATE ACTION PROJECTS, NORTHERN IRELAND
  ESTATE ACTION PROJECTS, NORTHERN IRELAND
  WATER: CONTROL OF AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION
  WATER: CONTROL OF AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION