Sitting of 14 January 1991

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

    Bypasses
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much central Government are making available to councils for the building of bypasses; and what is the comparable figure for the last three years.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The transport supplementary grant settlement announced on 17 December will make £207 million available to local authorities in 1991–92 for the building of bypasses. The equivalent figures for the past three years were £139 million, £157 million and £202 million respectively.
    Mr. Mitchell: Since this is the first Question Time of 1991, I hope that it is in order to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and your staff a happy new year, in which I catch your eye many times.
    In view of the importance that the Government attach to the building of bypasses for environmental, traffic and quality of life reasons, the fact that this year's transport supplementary grant settlement for Nottinghamshire showed an increase of 300 per cent. on last year and the fact that many of my constituents in Gedling village have had to wait nearly 60 years for Gedling bypass even to be put in the capital programme, will my right hon. and learned Friend at least urge Nottinghamshire county council to ensure that that important and much-needed road enters the capital programme as swiftly as possible?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am well aware of the strong efforts that my hon. Friend has made to bring forward the date of that bypass. As he will appreciate, it is very much a matter for Nottinghamshire county council to decide whether to include that project in its programme. If it decides to do so, the project would be considered for TSG support at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Lord: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend on behalf of my constituents in Suffolk, as their grant this year is being more than doubled, which will be greatly appreciated. I also hope that the extra money will speed up the arrival of a bypass that is much needed in the villages of Rickinghall and Botesdale, where villagers have waited many a long year for such a bypass to be built. I appreciate that this is a matter for the county council, but the villagers hope, as I do, that the bypass will soon be built.
    Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I attach considerable importance to bypasses, which not only help the flow of traffic, but bring major environmental benefits to those who live in the towns and villages that are bypassed. The contribution of bypasses is increasingly important, given the pressures placed on local communities by the huge increase in the volume of traffic in recent years.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the announcement include bypasses in the county of Derbyshire such as that at Glapwell in my constituency? Is it not a fact that money has not been allocated to Derbyshire because the standard spending assessment there is too low compared with those of Wandsworth and Westminster and if Derbyshire county council had as much money it could have gone forward with bypasses at Glapwell and other places in the county? Will the Secretary of State have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that we receive the money next year?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had a word with his local authority it might reduce its spending to benefit community charge payers in the constituency. The transport supplementary grant settlement will enable many worthwhile projects around the country to go forward in a way that would not otherwise be possible.

    M25
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress in upgrading the M25.
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to begin on the measures contained in his Department's action plan to improve the operation of the M25 motorway.
    Mr. Rifkind: I announced on 3 December that the M25 is to be widened to four lanes, with better lighting and signalling including variable message signs, and that its junctions are to be improved to speed up traffic flows. The design work has now been started.
    Mr. Marshall: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to the Department of Transport, which proves that there is life after the Scottish Office. Many of us hope that England's roads will become as uncongested as Scotland's roads were under his leadership. Does he agree that the M25's history has been bedevilled by timid planning and inaccurate forecasts? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a six-lane highway or a second M25 is needed?
    Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his first comments, which I greatly appreciate.
    The current proposal is that there should be a four-lane M25, although it is considered possible that some stretches of that road would be suitable for five lanes. It is always impossible to forecast traffic demand with certainty, but I believe that the M25, even in its present form, has led to considerable benefits, especially by reducing the number of heavy lorries in London. That is of great benefit to those who live in the metropolis.
    Mr. Knapman: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement just before Christmas on

    599
    improvements to the M25. Have adequate funds been made available for this purpose? What is the likely starting date?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can assure my hon. Friend that the programme, which will take a number of years to implement, will be given a high priority in the spending resources of the Department.
    The design work has already started; much of the work announced in the action plan is already in hand—for example, variable message signs and signals are to be installed with completion by early 1992 on part of the motorway and contracts for lighting improvements, as well as for a number of other detailed improvements, have been let. Road construction work takes longer because of design work and the necessary planning permission, but we intend to make as much progress as possible over the next few years.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Given the scandalous chaos that surrounds the whole M25, what assurance can the Minister give that the planners will get it right this time when they got it so badly wrong the time before? Surely, the more one increases the number of lanes on motorways the more traffic is attracted to them. Would not one of the best ways of dealing with the problems of the M25 be to close it down?
    Mr. Rifkind: Those who live in the south-east will learn with considerable interest of the view of Labour Members that we should redirect the huge number of vehicles that use the M25 back into London. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would not be grateful for that. One hundred and sixty thousand vehicles a day use the busiest section of the M25 and if it were not available the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be very unimpressed by his suggestion.
    Ms. Ruddock: The Secretary of State must know that by the time the fourth lane is completed traffic will have increased by 33 per cent. It cannot be beyond his imagination to accept that neither he nor his Department can provide sufficient road space to meet the increasing demand that his Department predicts. Does he agree with us that the time has come to look at the possibility of new orbital links on the railways around London to try to deal with the growth of traffic?
    Mr. Rifkind: For a number of years now there have been substantial increases in investment in the railways. I have no doubt that the rail network will provide part of the solution to the transport needs of this part of the country, but the majority of the public will wish to continue using their own means of transport and it will be a responsibility of whichever party is in government to ensure that the road network can help to meet these requirements.
    Mr. Dunn: While a general welcome has been given to the decision to provide lighting along most of the length of the M25, will the Secretary of State explain why it was decided not to provide lighting on the part of the M25 that goes through north-west Kent in general and Dartford in particular?
    Mr. Rifkind: So far as I recollect, the only part of the M25 that is not to be provided with lighting is the part that has the lowest volume of traffic and where lighting was not thought to be necessary. However, I will happily look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.

    North-West England
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last visited the north-west of England by rail.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Although my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not yet had the opportunity to visit the north-west by rail, his ministerial colleagues at the Department have done so on several occasions.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Should the requirement for British Rail InterCity services to make a profit have precedence over the duty placed on BR to provide a full public service? If quality of service has priority, why is the frequency of service between London and the route centre of Penrith to be reduced to the disadvantage of the travelling public? That has given rise to some anger in the county.
    Mr. Freeman: In our judgment there is nothing inconsistent between asking InterCity to make a profit—to earn revenue in excess of operating costs; it is one of the few railway systems in the world to achieve that—and the provision of a quality service. Of course that is not possible for regional railways and is currently not possible for Network SouthEast. However, it is possible for InterCity.
    Mr. Fearn: When the Minister visits the north-west will he please look at the Burscough curves? Will he look at it with a view to opening up the south-west of Lancashire and especially my resort of Southport? The route was closed many years ago under the Beeching cuts and if it were reinstated it would open up the whole of south-west Lancashire and bring rail traffic from Scotland and the north.
    Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly look at that when I next visit the north-west. The hon. Gentleman may care to note that when an investment proposition for regional railways is considered by British Rail and put to Ministers, approval does not necessarily hinge upon meeting an 8 per cent. financial rate of return. Where necessary, other criteria, including non-user benefits such as road decongestion, economic regeneration and other economic and social benefits, are taken into account.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend will be aware of the criticisms that are levelled against the Government about lack of investment in the north-west. However, I am sure that he is aware of the major investment that is taking place on the north-west main line from London to our major cities. The problems facing north-west travellers are to be found on the rural and minor urban lines, especially those between Liverpool and Preston where train frequency has been reduced. On his next visit to the north-west will he look into that matter as well?
    Mr. Freeman: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to services on the west coast main line. I again confirm that British Rail still plans to upgrade the west coast main line at a cost of some £750 million to provide a two-hour service from London to Manchester. That is still firmly in the rail programme. In terms of improvements to services in the north-west, we recently approved the electrification of the line between Hooton and Chester and I am sure that that is greatly welcomed not only on Merseyside but by

    601
    Cheshire county council. We will look at all sensible propositions put forward by British Rail for improving services in the north-west.

    Greater Manchester
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a public statement about transport in Greater Manchester.
    Mr. Freeman: Today British Rail introduces class 158 vehicles to the transpennine route which links Manchester with Liverpool and Leeds and Newcastle. The rail link to the airport will open in 1993. The Metrolink light rail scheme is under construction and will open in about 12 months.
    Mr. Bennett: Could the Minister explain to my constituents who, during 1988 and 1989, suffered a great deal every time they entered Manchester Piccadilly station because British Rail was carrying out so-called improvements to that station, why, even after those improvements, they are still suffering because of a poor service? Is he aware that the centre of Manchester was snarled up on several occasions before Christmas because of the large number of people using the roads there? They used those roads because they have totally lost confidence in British Rail's ability efficiently to run local services in and out of Manchester Piccadilly.
    Mr. Freeman: I am aware of the discussions between the passenger transport authority and British Rail about section 20 support under the Transport Act 1968 for suburban services in Manchester. I understand that regional railways are seeking to resolve the reliability problems, particularly with older rolling stock such as the pacers and the older diesel units. As to the congestion in the centre of Manchester, I hope that the introduction of Metrolink, for which the taxpayer is providing a cash grant in excess of £50 million, will help congestion, particularly for those who travel from a south-westerly or northerly direction into Manchester. Let us hope that, in due course, it will be possible to extend the Metrolink to include and benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that Manchester airport is the third largest in the United Kingdom and that the second terminal will double its capacity from 9 million to 18 million? Is it not also a fact that, of the £87 million that the Government earmarked for borrowing approvals, a lion's share has gone to Manchester international airport? Does not this speak volumes for Members of Parliament representing the north-west and for the Government, who have listened to what we have had to say?
    Mr. Freeman: It speaks volumes for my hon. Friend and his colleagues who have strongly pressed the Government to support the expansion plans for the airport. My hon. Friend is correct to say that the new terminal at Manchester will permit a 50 per cent. increase in the number of passengers using it. The rail link from the centre of Manchester to the airport is well under way and will open in 1993, as I said to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Further to that, there will be a road link to the airport. All will help the future growth and prosperity of Manchester.
    Mr. Eastham: At this late hour, the House hopes that there will not be conflict in the Gulf, but great play has been made in the media of the fact that Manchester airport will be used to receive many of the casualties that may occur if there is a war.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about transport in Greater Manchester.
    Mr. Eastham: That is what my supplementary is about.
    If there is a conflict and many casualties are directed to Manchester airport, will the Minister ensure that all contingency expenses such as reception, accommodation, security, nursing and transport are met from the central contingency fund rather than by the owners of Manchester airport?
    Mr. Freeman: I note the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman says. He would not wish me to comment in detail, but I undertake on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend to get the answer to that question and to write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Prescott: As the Minister has made clear, Manchester airport will be subjected to the new security measures introduced because of the Gulf crisis. Will he give us some idea of what those measures will be? Will they include inspection of all luggage that goes into the hold —a move against which the Government have set their face in the past—and the levy that is necessary to finance the machinery for that? Will he consider the economic regulations imposed by his Department on the airports that prevent them from raising the extra money to finance that essential part of security checking?
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not expect me or any of my ministerial colleagues to comment on specific security measures at British airports or on advice to British airlines in the coming rather tense period. As to the examination of luggage going both to the hold and into the cabins of aircraft, my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation will ensure that, in the coming troubled days and weeks, all necessary steps are taken to ensure that not only British travellers but those passengers visiting our shores can travel as safely as possible.

    A69
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the dualling of the A69 west of Hexham.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): We are continuing to make improvements to the A69, but traffic flows to the west of Hexham are light and not sufficient to justify dualling.
    Mr. Amos: Given the Government's welcome decision to upgrade the Al to motorway standard and to build the Prudhoe and Haltwhistle bypasses and the Ponteland relief road, the A69 is now the strategic east-west link road with the north of England. To get the A69 dualled, would my hon. Friend consider changing the relevant criteria so that they take account of vehicle movements, the nature of the road—it is narrow and hilly—and usage, bearing n mind that the road is used by many slow-moving, heavy

    603
    vehicles, including lorries and caravans? On the stretch of road to which I am referring, there have been 300 accidents in the past three years. It is the worst accident black spot in the north-east of England.
    Mr. Chope: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that the number of vehicles using a road is not the only criterion when we consider whether to construct a dual carriageway. We take into account the physical characteristics of the road and the number of heavy goods vehicles that use it, for example. Where there is evidence of accident black spots, the Government will be equipped to take specific remedial action.
    Ms. Quin: May I stress to the Minister that his words will be a considerable disappointment to those in the Tyne and Wear conurbation? If the A69 were of better quality, it would provide a good link to the M5 and the rest of the country. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the last thing that we want for the A69 is the lethal mixture of dual and single carriageways which characterises the Al north of Newcastle?
    Mr. Chope: The Government have to set priorities for investment in the road infrastructure and I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that the north of England has done well. We are spending about £130 million on road infrastructure in the north of England—that is this year and last year—and there are programmes for about a further £110 million of investment. I am sure that the hon. Lady would wish that investment to be put forward on the most cost-effective basis.

    Road Safety
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives he has to announce to improve road safety.
    Mr. Chope: The first 20 mph speed limit zones will come into effect on 21 January—the first of many road safety initiatives that are planned for implementation this year.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the most serious accident that could take place would involve a collision of lorries carrying toxic waste or liquefied gases? To avoid such an accident, and accidents generally, will the hon. Gentleman try to implement the two certain savers of accidents, which are daylight saving—that would avoid the deaths of up to 700 persons a year—and the introduction or wider use of speed retarders, which the Department's research has shown would reduce accidents by 15 per cent. on roads in general and by as much as 50 per cent. at specific sites? These measures would result in a great saving of life and reduce the dreadful level of injuries that are suffered on our roads. What is the hon. Gentleman doing about them?
    Mr. Chope: Daylight saving is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, while speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles are very much the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are examining carefully and closely whether we would be justified in introducing speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles. There is increasing concern about the intimidation that such vehicles present to many ordinary motorists. There is plenty of evidence that heavy goods vehicles are often driven at speeds far in excess of
    604
    the limit that applies to them and that they are not driven as we would wish. That is why the Government are examining seriously the introduction of speed limiters, which we have already introduced for coaches.
    Mr. Devlin: When the Government decide that the best improvement to road safety in a local area would be made by constructing a bypass, and grant money to a county council to be used to construct the bypass, will the Minister look into instances where county councils delay construction, including that of the Thornaby bypass where the county council is delaying for up to eight years implementation of the policy which the Government have approved and funded, when the road could be constructed over two or three years?
    Mr. Chope: I share my hon. Friend's frustration at the shortcomings of Cleveland county council. There are too many examples of county councils and other highway authorities being given resources and then choosing not to spend them in the way that local Members and local communities would wish.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister accept that far more priority should be given to local schemes, as opposed to major schemes, when transport supplementary grant is being settled? Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), does the Minister agree that in view of the many hazardous loads carried by road, which are set to increase as a result of the proposals to transport as many as 500,000 tonnes of toxic waste for incineration, more safety regulations need to be put into effect? When will the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee publish its findings on the sub-committee on dangerous substances report? Will the Department accept those recommendations in full, and will the Minister consider what more can be done in respect of local road safety?
    Mr. Chope: As to local investment in safety schemes, in the coming financial year the Government will, for the first time, give transport supplementary grant for local safety schemes amounting to £30 million, which is in line with the amount recommended by the parliamentary advisory committee on transport safety. Next year's standard spending assessments for local authority road maintenance will increase by some 19 per cent., which means that some £1.75 billion will be available to local authorities to spend on their roads.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that one cause of accidents is the speed at which vehicles approach schools? Will he give serious consideration to the placing of speed humps at the sides of roads approaching schools, and the provision of additional flashing lights at a greater distance from the school than is done at present? If my hon. Friend needs to look further for an example, perhaps he could run an experiment in north Yorkshire.
    Mr. Chope: The new speed hump regulations give local authorities flexibility to put forward the kind of scheme that my hon. Friend favours.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with the chairman of British Rail plans for a direct rail link between the channel tunnel and the north of England; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: I last met Sir Bob Reid on 12 December, when we discussed, among other things, rail links between the tunnel and the north.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Secretary of State agree that only a dedicated European-gauge track between the tunnel and north-east England and Scotland will reduce the divide between north and south and that failure to provide one will exacerbate that divide? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take whatever steps are necessary to provide such a track?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not believe that there is any need for a dedicated track at present. If one were provided, it would divert substantial resources from other, more pressing railway requirements. It is important to ensure that demand for services from the channel tunnel can be fully met, but British Rail believes that that will be possible using the existing track, at least for the first few years.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend contemplate the incongruity and inequality as between road and rail in the answers given regarding the north of England at Question Time today? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the Minister for Roads and Traffic saying a few minutes ago that the Al to the north of England is to be converted to a motorway, and that £130 million is to be provided for local roads in the north of England? Will the Secretary of State seriously review the criteria applied by the Department for investment in roads compared with those for investment in railways?
    Mr. Rifkind: I read with interest the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) made in the House last March, when he referred to that particular aspect. I am always prepared to consider any argument that there is unfairness or inconsistency in the way in which investment projects are appraised. We make a genuine attempt to assess them on a fair and equitable basis, but we will consider carefully any suggestions to improve our procedures.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that not only will the north of England fail to receive through passenger trains when the channel tunnel opens, but that, with the proposed withdrawal of much of the Speedlink network, the north will also have fewer through freight trains? Is not that a further setback both for the railway industry and for the environment? Is the Secretary of State happy at the prospect of an additional 100,000 or more lorry movements on Britain's roads?
    Mr. Rifkind: British Rail has said that there will be some delay with regard to through passenger services, not for reasons of resources but because the manufacturers have not yet been able to deliver a firm date and price for the modified rolling stock. Services will be available from day one, although they will involve some changes for passengers, probably at Waterloo. In relation to freight, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the implications of the Speedlink decision for the channel
    606
    tunnel. That decision arose out of the massive losses which British Rail was making on its existing Speedlink services. The hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I am that about half the freight carried by Speedlink is to be retained by the rail network through new contracts with relevant customers.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the need to ensure that the benefits of the channel tunnel are shared by all regions of the United Kingdom? In that context, has he seen the report recently published by the Transport Users Consultative Committee for western England which draws attention to the need for a direct link to the south-west through Swindon?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, the question is about the north-east.
    Mr. Rifkind: I accept what my hon. Friend said—there is bound to be legitimate interest in various parts of the kingdom in having the benefits of the channel services. Essentially, it is for British Rail to decide whether there will be a demand such as to justify providing that service. I hope that it will consider carefully the points made by my hon. Friend.

    Newham Way, Canning Town
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a visit to Newham way at Canning Town to discuss the building of a footbridge to enable pedestrians to cross that road without use of a subway.
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport visited Canning Town on 2 January, in the company of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Spearing: I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) for promptly accepting that, invitation. Does the Minister agree that, as safety factors are involved, and when millions of pounds are being spent to allow more traffic to travel more quickly through the area, the case is even stronger than that made at the time?
    Mr. Chope: Certainly, I am considering the points put to me by my hon. Friend arising out of his visit. One has to have regard to the fact that there are existing subway crossings under that road, and obviously that has to be taken into account when considering the future.

    Red Routes
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring of the effect of red routes is planned by his Department.
    Mr. Chope: There will be a full programme of monitoring for the pilot red route scheme.
    Mr. Corbyn: A happy new year to you, Mr. Speaker.
    Is the Minister aware that red routes are being introduced in Islington and in part of Haringey despite the total opposition of people in the area and their local authorities, that when I cycled along the red route this morning it was in its normal traffic-jammed state, with the usual levels of pollution, and that when the red routes were introduced last week the police tried to remove a post van which was emptying a mail box and threatened to remove a disabled person's car? Are not the red routes really a

    607
    system of bringing more traffic, more danger and more pollution in central London, when what we need is a restriction on private cars going in and out of central London?
    Mr. Chope: I do not agree at all with what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, a letter in The Times today confirms that some of the principal beneficiaries of red routes are buses and their passengers. When I visited the red routes last Wednesday, there was certainly evidence that traffic was flowing much more freely. So far, the red routes seem to have been generally well received and when Islington council has got its act together and completed the red route, I am sure that they will be even better received.
    Mr. Jessel: As red routes are an excellent idea, and as experience in Paris shows that they will improve the traffic flow, will my hon. Friend get on with it and not have too full a programme of monitoring?
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extra encouragement. We shall do our best to get the Road Traffic Bill enacted as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the red routes will prove of great value to people in London, not least to people who are currently plagued by rat runs? Does he also agree that red routes should not be seen as a single item, but as part of a package with improved public transport—which we hope will come shortly in the London assessment study announcement—and with greater park-and-ride facilities on the edges of London?
    Mr. Chope: I very much agree with the points that my hon. Friend has made. The red routes are at heart a very comprehensive transport strategy for London.

    Network SouthFast
    Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the quality of services on Network SouthEast.
    Mr. Freeman: We have regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail, at which we discuss a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister understand that last week's tragedy at Cannon Street station has merely reinforced the fear felt by many commuters from south-east London and Kent that they are being forced to accept a second-class service? Welcome though the new Networker trains will undoubtedly be, they will not automatically bring relief from sudden cancellations, late running, dirty carriages, unhelpful staff and unmanned stations. When will British Rail give those captive commuters a quality of service that would justify the ever-rising fares?
    Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement in due course about the tragic accident at Cannon Street station.
    The introduction of new Networker trains for the Kent inner routes, which will commence in September, will bring an improvement in the quality of service and, with the lengthening of platforms, will definitely reduce congestion. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to other
    608
    qualitative factors on Network SouthEast that have not been dealt with. We and British Rail—Network SouthEast in particular—are considering how those problems should be addressed.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The Court of Appeal has fixed 25 February 1991 for the commencement of the substantive hearing. It also proposes to hold a further preliminary hearing in early February. I will not make a statement; the case is sub judice.
    Mr. Mullin: Who authorised the suppression of documents relating to forensic tests carried out on passengers on a ferry between Liverpool and Belfast on 21 November?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House has heard what the Attorney-General said about the matter. The case has been set down for trial, and it is sub judice.
    Mr. Mullin: And why were those documents not available at the original trial, or at the appeal—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows the rules that apply to such matters.
    Mr. Mullin: It is not sub judice. It is a matter of record.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Tony Banks.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Attorney-General aware of newspaper reports to the effect that the Director of Public Prosecutions said at his new year party that the forensic evidence was to be dropped? Is that so? And if it is so, why have defence counsel not been told about it?
    The Attorney-General: I am not aware of any of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As for the stance that the Director of Public Prosecutions takes on the hearing of the substantive appeal, that must rest with the Director—who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the holder of an independent statutory office. I can add nothing more to that.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this whole unhappy affair, which stretches back some years and in which so many innocent people were killed, should be settled once and for all? Her Majesty's Government have served the sense of justice well —there have been two trials already. When the appeal comes up, however, can we settle the whole matter once and for all? The Birmingham people do not seek vengeance; they seek justice. Someone, somewhere was

    609
    guilty—and the least guilty people are not just those in prison but the many who suffered and died on that dreadful night.
    The Attorney-General: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of the matter's being settled, as he puts it, once and for all. Perhaps the House will permit me to cite what was said by Lord Justice Lloyd at the preliminary hearing on 17 December:
    "We have to balance the imperative need for expedition in this appeal which we wholeheartedly accept with the equally imperative need that on this occasion the decision of the court should be taken on the basis not only of the material now available but also on such further material as will become available when the inquiry of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary has been completed."
    Mr. John Morris: Like the whole House, I wish to avoid any infringement of the sub judice rule. Therefore, I couch my question in this form: once the appeal is heard, will the Attorney-General lay before the House a full statement, in the form of a paper, on the general implementation of the Attorney-General's guidelines on the disclosure of unused material in prosecutions, the extent to which they have not been implemented in prosecutions in recent years, and whether any requests for the full disclosure of documents have been turned down when inquiries have been made by other police forces?
    The Attorney-General: I shall, of course, consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request, but I do not give any commitment.
    Mr. Dickens: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that six of the 10 questions to him on the Order Paper today are about the Birmingham Six and that they are identical?
    Mr. Tony Banks: You do not care.
    Mr. Dickens: The hon. Gentleman says that I do not care, but am I being mischievous in suggesting that this has more to do with the large Irish vote in those Members' constituencies and less to do with the sincerity of their case?
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: What is it?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) questions the sincerity of hon. Members. Normally, that is unacceptable. I would certainly suggest—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the integrity of hon. Members is in question.
    Ms. Short: It is.
    Mr. Speaker: Such comments do not help us, but I do not think that that particular question was out of order.
    Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be one of those hon. Members who tabled a question. I tabled it because of my considerable concern about a miscarriage of justice. It has nothing to do with my own constituents or their backgrounds. It seems to me, therefore, that you should require the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth to withdraw what he said.
    Mr. Speaker: I have heard many rougher things said in the House.
    Mr. Dickens rose—
    Mr. Speaker: No, No!
    Mr. Dickens: I was going to withdraw what I said, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had better get up and do it, then.
    Mr. Dickens: In order to assist the Chair and any hon. Members whom I might have offended, I withdraw my remark about their sincerity.
    Mr. Speaker: Very well. Let us move on.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest position on Crown prosecution service staffing levels.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Recruitment in the Crown prosecution service has improved during 1990. Lawyers in post are now 1,686 against an increased total requirement of 2,053. As to administrative staff and law clerks, against a total requirement of 3,670, 3,636 are in post.
    Mr. Allen: Can the Solicitor-General tell us anything about the workload of the Crown prosecution service? Does it not have enough to do without hundreds of hours of Crown prosecution service time being frittered away in seeking to sustain the conviction of the Birmingham Six and save the face and pride of Lord Lane?
    The Solicitor-General: That is a backdoor way of getting in on a previous question about a matter which is entirely sub judice. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept that in this country we have an open and careful system of justice. That is what the Court of Appeal will administer.
    Mr. Vaz: The Solicitor-General has confirmed, by his own admission to the House, that the Crown prosecution service is still grossly understaffed. It is one fifth down on the staff that it requires. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General accept the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and give the CPS the resources that it so desperately needs?
    The Solicitor-General: There were many good things in the recommendations of the Select Committee. It is true that the Crown prosecution service is still only about 80 per cent. staffed, compared with its complement, but it is also true that in its four years of existence it has managed to increase its complement by more than one third. It is making very considerable improvements, just as it did throughout the past year.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Attorney-General confirm that senior judges are saying that the Guildford Four were guilty, despite the fact that they were released by the court? What hope is there for a genuinely fair trial for the Birmingham Six when, apparently, senior members of the judiciary do not accept the findings of the Court of Appeal in relation to the Guildford Four?
    The Attorney-General: I confirm nothing of the kind.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Attorney-General what steps are taken to encourage the use of representative actions where a substantial number of persons seek legal aid for actions arising out of substantially similar facts.
    The Solicitor-General: In cases involving a number of parties and substantially similar facts, applications for legal aid are all referred to the same legal aid area office. Decisions on the grant of legal aid are made in such a way as to encourage representative procedures where appropriate.
    Mr. Trimble: Is the Solicitor-General aware of the number of cases that have recently been commenced in the High Court in Belfast against the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? All those cases involve the possibility of information on terrrorist suspects getting into the hands of rival paramilitary organisations, and those suspects have commenced action. I understand that there are more than 50 such actions, with virtually consecutive writ numbers and the same firm of solicitors, but all are being routinely processed for legal aid. Does the Solicitor-General agree that a single action would be sufficient to establish what merits, if any, there may be and that it is a considerable waste of public money for all 50 actions to be individually granted legal aid?
    The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the general fact that such actions have been commenced, but I do not know the detail. If they are as the hon. Gentleman says, I am sure that the legal aid authority in Northern Ireland —the Law Society—will consider carefully the points that he has made to see whether such representative action might be appropriate.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    The Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce a programme of ecological aid to the littoral countries of the Persian Gulf.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): No. We seek to concentrate our development aid on the poorest countries, not richer ones like those in the Gulf.
    Mr. Dalyell: What contingency plans have been made to cope with the problems of photochemical smog and the excessive release of hydrocarbons, which Paul Crutzen, atmospheric physicist at the Max Planck Institute of
    612
    Atmospheric Physics in Maine—the leading authority in the world on these matters—says may be the major problem? If the object is to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, rather than a war that will end God knows where, why has not thought been given to diverting the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates in Syria and Turkey?
    Mrs. Chalker: The Meteorological Office, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence are working on possible scenarios, but the best way of avoiding ecological damage in the Gulf—
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not war.
    Mrs. Chalker: It is for Saddam Hussein to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait today.
    Mr. Carrington: In the event of a Gulf war, which we must all hope does not occur, and the likely increase in oil prices that will result from it, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing aid to third-world countries which are dependent on oil for their energy resources and which will be severely hit by their inability to pay the new high prices?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend may already be aware that we have been working with the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to see what additional help can be given. The European Community agreed a package of 1,500 mecu for Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, which is exactly the way in which we should be helping. We are well aware of the pressures on developing countries and we shall consider the matter as time rolls by. We hope very much that there will be a withdrawal from Kuwait, which will end the extra pressure on the developing countries.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Minister accept that, as I have seen for myself in the past few days, Jordan's greater and urgent need is for further help in dealing with the problem of transit refugees through the country? Will she acknowledge that Jordan has done a magnificent job but is still out of pocket?
    Mrs. Chalker: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have already helped Jordan through the various international agencies, which I saw when I was there in September. We are in touch with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Geneva-based agencies this morning issued an appeal. We are working on a contingency plan and when I have more details I may be able to respond to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Eastern Bloc (Food Distribution)
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to assist with the distribution of food within the Soviet Union and other former eastern bloc countries.
    Mrs. Chalker: We believe that economic reform in the Soviet Union is essential if a prosperous and democratic society is to emerge. Reform of food distribution systems is a priority under the know-how fund. However, we

    613
    deplore the Soviet army's action in Lithuania and we are discussing the whole issue with our EC partners in Brussels today.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I had lunch with President Landsbergis in the House just two months ago. Even then, he was fearful that his country would be taken over by the red army. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is crucial in the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc is not so much the production and supply of food as its distribution? Does she have any proposals to improve the distribution of food within those countries and is she doing anything to assist studies on that aspect?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no famine in the USSR, which had a record grain harvest—better than the predicted vegetable harvest. The problem is distribution. That is why I am glad that British expertise from private companies has been used in an attempt to determine what can be done to improve food distribution. The Anderson Consulting firm has examined the Soviet bread consortium, and the British Food Consortium has carried out a study of the food chain around Kiev. Major steps can be taken, but, of course, we wish to help the people and any further use of force by the Soviet Government could jeopardise western aid to the Soviet Union greatly.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the right hon. Lady accept that we all wish to see genuine assistance given to the emergent democracies and, indeed, the ordinary citizens of the Soviet Union? Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office issue a clear condemnation of the behaviour of President Gorbachev and the Soviet troops in Lithuania and of the continuing threat to the Baltic states, both of which are in clear contradiction to United Nations article 1? We want a clear statement of condemnation from the west at this stage.
    Mrs. Chalker: That is why in my initial reply I condemned the action of the Soviet army. The matter is being discussed within the European Community today. We shall have Foreign and Commonwealth diplomatic questions on Wednesday, when I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have a lot more to say on the matter.
    The Baltic states are eligible to receive our aid, but, as yet, they do not seem to be seriously affected by food shortages. It seems that the shortages are in the large industrial cities. We shall give them help and we are already giving technical assistance to the Baltic states. We shall continue to do so if possible.
    Sir Bernard Braine: While I imagine that everyone in the House supports the idea of giving food or any other type of aid to the hard-pressed countries of eastern Europe, is not it untimely and even a little indecent to suggest that we should give aid to the Soviet Union at a moment when it is reverting to type and sending armed troops into Lithuania, which, like the other two Baltic states, was forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union and deserves its freedom?
    Mrs. Chalker: As my right hon. Friend knows full well, I agree with him entirely. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, there is a real danger that the Soviet Union will go back into its Stalinist shell. The freedom of the Baltic states is important and we sincerely hope that the measures put into force some months ago will be allowed to continue to help the Soviet people by the Government of the Soviet Union and its president seeing the sense of stopping the abominable behaviour that we saw over the weekend in Lithuania.
    Dr. David Owen: The right hon. Lady is surely right to call it abominable behaviour. Does she agree that it is also wrong to continue giving credit to the Soviet Union and transfering high technology, both of which should be stopped instantly by the European Community and the western democracies?
    Mr. Chalker: I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman's points are being discussed at this very moment in Brussels. We telephoned Brussels before we came to the House to answer questions today. I cannot: given the right hon. Gentleman an answer as to what has happened there, but we hope to do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend consider the problems that might arise in central European countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia if there are refugees from the Baltic states? More food aid may well need to be directed to Poland and Czechoslovakia to cope with the terrible problems provoked by the Soviet Union's aggression towards its own people.
    Mrs. Chalker: I can assure my hon. Friend that, if Poland or any of the other states needs help to cope with refugees from the Soviet Union, we shall be ready to help. It is most important that diplomatic pressure from all over the world should have its effect on the Government of the Soviet Union so that this deplorable behaviour ceases forthwith in the Baltic states and everywhere else.
    Mrs. Clwyd: We all share the great concern about repression in Lithuania. Does the Minister agree that there is plenty of evidence that the Soviet people wish to see a further development of glasnost and perestroika? Given that today she has said that it is important to help those people, may we have her assurance that she will honour the pledges made by the European Community to give emergency food aid to help Soviet citizens weather the winter?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady knows full well that when the Foreign Ministers of the European Community sit together in Brussels and discuss this very issue I cannot give any undertaking about what they may have decided. I take her point that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) who raised the question said, the food problem in the Soviet Union is not famine, but distribution. If we can help the Soviet Union to tackle that problem, we shall be making a long-term investment to help the Soviet people make the best of their production.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for tomorrow, Tuesday 15 January, will now be a debate on the crisis in the Gulf on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The Export and Investment Guarantees Bill previously set down for that day will be taken shortly.
Dr. John Cunningham: I thank the Leader of the House for arranging yet another debate on the grave crisis in the Gulf. It will enable us to place on record our emphatic support for the United Nations and for all efforts to find a peaceful solution. If, regrettably, armed conflict occurs—we have never ruled that out—the British forces will have our total support.
We have witnessed deplorable occurrences in Lithuania in the past 24 hours. Will the Leader of the House arrange as soon as is convenient to the House for the Foreign Secretary to make an oral statement on those events? Can that be discussed and agreed through the usual channels?
Mr. MacGregor: Obviously the first matter which the hon. Gentleman raised will be the feature of tomorrow's debate. Every effort has been made to achieve a peaceful outcome, and I am grateful for his support for the British forces.
The whole House will be greatly concerned about events in Lithuania and I well understand why the hon. Gentleman raised that matter. The Government strongly deplore the action of the Soviet forces. We have made our views clearly known to the Soviet authorities. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Brussels today at an emergency meeting to discuss the events in Lithuania as well as the situation in the Gulf. Apart from that meeting, the Government are seeking clarification from the Soviet authorities.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep the House fully informed as the situation develops in the coming days. We can discuss the appropriate means and timing of that through the usual channels. My right hon. Friend will certainly wish to make some sort of statement.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that tomorrow's important debate on the Gulf should reflect in its tone as well as in its content the seriousness and gravity of the unwarranted aggression and intransigence of Iraq? Does he also agree that its tone will compare dramatically with the despicable attitude of some parts of the media which seem to treat the growing prospect of war as something akin to a world cup football spectacular?
Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend says. I do not want today to go into the substance of tomorrow's debate, but I am sure that such matters will be raised.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Leader of the House aware that, by choosing to table an Adjournment motion tomorrow, the Government have excluded, by a procedural device, any possibility for amendments to be tabled by those who believe that sanctions should be given more time to work or that there should be further
616
negotiation? The Government's handling of the matter is in marked contrast to that of the American Congress, where the Senate has been allowed to vote, and has voted, as has the House of Representatives.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware—I raised this with Mr. Speaker this afternoon—that this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn? Since such a war could end with the exchange of nuclear weapons, it is an outrage to parliamentary democracy that the Government should have chosen to use this mechanism for giving the House the chance to express its view on such a grave matter for the world and for the people of this country.
Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that it was clear that the Government had given this House many opportunities to debate the situation in the Gulf and that we are taking the first appropriate opportunity this week to have a debate on it again. The previous debate was on a motion for the Adjournment of the House and we judged that it was appropriate to have the debate tomorrow again on a motion for the Adjournment to enable all shades of view to be expressed and to allow the maximum flexibility for relevant issues to be raised. I think that that is the right way to proceed.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members endorse the request of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for a statement by the Foreign Secretary on the disgraceful events in Lithuania so that we can express our hope that economic aid will be cut to the Soviet Union as a sign of our total and utter disgust at what its troops did yesterday?
Mr. MacGregor: As I have already said, I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. It is right that, at an appropriate time, my right hon. Friend should make a statement to the House. Clearly it was not appropriate for a statement to be made today, given that my right hon. Friend is in Brussels at the Foreign Affairs Council discussing these matters.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a significant difference between the previous debates that terminated on a motion for the Adjournment, which allowed the issues to be examined and ventilated, and tomorrow's debate, which will be on the eve of a possible war? A few moments ago he said that tomorrow's debate should allow all shades of opinion to be registered. But the debate should also allow all shades of opinions to be registered on a vote.
What we really require is for the Government to table a motion of Government policy that is capable of amendment. It is unacceptable for people to be forced to vote for or against the Adjournment and then to have that technical vote interpreted exactly as the Government want.
Mr. MacGregor: There will be an opportunity for hon. Members to raise all sorts of issues and to express their views in the House tomorrow. Last time there was, of course, a vote on the Adjournment and no doubt that could happen again if necessary. This is the right way for a debate of this sort to proceed.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the two previous occasions when we debated this issue there was a serious discussion about the imminence of war? Tomorrow will not be the first occasion on which we shall be confronted by an imminent war but rather the first occasion when a date associated with United Nations sanctions has been identified.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the House wants to debate this matter and that is why I made today's statement and why we took the decision to have that debate at the most sensible earliest opportunity.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Does the Leader of the House agree that, by refusing the House of Commons the opportunity to legitimise or reject Government policy, the Government will do nothing other than to reconfirm in many minds the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the Government have no right to ask young men to die in the Gulf if they do not have the courage to ask the House to vote on a specific motion?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not believe that that is the case. In tomorrow's debate, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will clearly outline the Government's position.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend recognises that many hon. Members believe that events in Lithuania threaten world peace every bit as much as events in the Gulf. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary makes a statement will the House also have the opportunity to debate that subject fully so that the House can send a clear message to Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet Government that invasion of Lithuania is no more acceptable than invasion of Kuwait?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. The views of the House can be expressed in other ways, not simply through debate. The right first step would be for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House or answer a question at the appropriate time.
Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome tomorrow's debate. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it has been agreed between the Front-Bench spokesmen that the debate should be on the Adjournment? Will he also confirm that, if there is war during the following days, tomorrow's debate should not be seen as the Government's acceptance of the inevitability of war, even at this late stage, and that procedures for debating matters arising from the conflict in the Gulf should be the subject of immediate consultation among all parties and, if possible, of agreement among all parties?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that on this matter, as on subjects such as events in Lithuania at present, there will be the need for continuous parliamentary discussion. I certainly intend to discuss the arrangements for such debates through the usual channels.
Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer he gave a moment ago on the subject of Lithuania? Events there may move rapidly and Mr. Gorbachev may not be in complete control. Suggestions have been made today that he is not in complete control and that other elements are insisting on
618
repressing the people of Lithuania. The people of the three Baltic states have been oppressed for a generation. It is not sufficient for the Foreign Secretary merely to make a statement and answer questions. If that were accompanied by the promise of an early debate, the House would be content—at least until the debate took place—and then we could see the shape of things to come.
Mr. MacGregor: I wholly understand my right hon. Friend's concern, which I share. I was simply saying that the first appropriate step would be for my right hon. Friend to make a statement, but clearly, as events unfolded, we would wish to see what other parliamentary opportunities there should be.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Leader of the House accept that the fact that the exchanges have inevitably and rightly concentrated on the problems in the Gulf and the Baltic states underlines the serious concern of seven aid agencies that launched a campaign last week to remind the House and the country that people are dying today in large numbers in Ethiopia, Africa, Mozambique and Angola? Does he accept that that is such a serious matter that time should be found for a debate on it?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government made a statement on that issue just before the Christmas recess, recognising the seriousness of the position and indicating the action that we were taking. We made that statement then because we thought it right to inform the House before the recess. Clearly we shall have to see what happens and consider the appropriate way to keep the House informed about the position and the Government's action; but that is not an issue for tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that questions to the Leader of the House—
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: It is an important issue.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is, of course, important, but questions should be directed to the statement and not to wider issues.
Mr. Derek Conway: In tomorrow's debate some hon. Members may wish to refer to the effectiveness of sanctions. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend discuss with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary placing in the Library a list of those countries that we know have been breaking sanctions so that hon. Members can compare those countries' actions with the amount of aid they receive from British taxpayers?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's request to my right hon. Friend.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is very difficult for Back Benchers to be called in short debates such as tomorrow's? Will he grant time for a debate on what is to happen to the thousands of casualties when they come to this country in the event of war breaking out—given the admission by the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday that there would be thousands of casualties? The Under-Secretary of State for Health says that everything is prepared, yet all medical opinion stresses that we are not prepared and that we cannot cope with the

619
number of casualties that might be incurred in the event of a conflict. Is not it a disgrace that a Department of Health document omitted a chapter that warned of the casualties that would be incurred due to gas and other noxious fumes? Should not the public be told what could face our service men and women in the Gulf in the event of this wholly unnecessary, cruel war breaking out?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to go into the substance of what the hon. Lady has said, because that is a matter for the debate tomorrow. As you, Mr. Speaker, have said, this statement is about tomorrow's debate and tomorrow's business: we are to hold a full debate on the Gulf tomorrow. That is as far as I can go at this stage. The important point is that we are providing a full day for the debate tomorrow.
Mr. Robert Adley: Although some of us have had concerns about United States policy in the middle east over the years, is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has rightly said, it would be unthinkable for the House to do anything other than to give its wholehearted support to our forces in the Gulf and, through them, to the Government's decisions? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the procedure that he has announced has been agreed between the usual channels?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I think that the procedure that I have announced is for the convenience of the House and is the right way to proceed tomorrow.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Leader of the House accept that my party thinks it totally unacceptable that a major decision on international policy should be taken by the House without a substantive discussion on a substantive motion? If that is good enough for the United States Congress, it should be good enough for the United Kingdom House of Commons.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that it is equally urgent that we debate Lithuania? Many of us are worried that this is yet another unholy carve-up between the great powers—that there is collaboration between sections of the Bush Government and the Soviet Union whereby support for the United States position in the Gulf is traded off for a lack of intervention to defend the human rights of the people of Lithuania?
Mr. MacGregor: Tomorrow's debate will be a substantive debate. As for a debate on Lithuania, we must see how events unfold. I have given the House a clear assurance that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will report to it at the earliest appropriate moment.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that we have another statement after this one and that we shall debate this matter tomorrow. I shall call three more Members from each side and then move on.
Mr. John Marshall: I welcome tomorrow's debate, which will give hon. Members a chance to underline to Saddam Hussein, in all his pigheaded obstinacy, the determination of the vast
620
majority of the British people that unprovoked aggression can never be condoned and that appeasement is a path not to peace but to further aggression.
Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the messages going out from this House tomorrow will be very clear.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Leader of the House ensure that before tomorrow's debate the House will be given a substantive assessment of the various issues that will arise if a conflict occurs? Only recently the Prime Minister said that he hoped that the conflict would be short and sharp. Is that a hope or a reasonable expectation? Evidence on oil and on the environment has not been presented to the House in any form, nor have we been told of the economic consequences for the nation of such a conflict. Surely before the debate we ought to be provided with more assessments by Departments and Ministers.
Mr. MacGregor: The point of the debate is to go over much of this ground. That is one of the many reasons why we are holding it tomorrow.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that what we are discussing now, and will be discussing tomorrow, is the fact that, for once in 50 years, the whole world has decided that the United Nations is right. It has passed 12 resolutions. The debate tomorrow is not about America or Britain but about the world against one demonic man. Surely the House should say not that there is a need for debate but that that man should know before it is too late that the world—not just Britain or America—is united in its belief that he should get out of Kuwait. If he does not get out of Kuwait, it will be not America's or Britain's fault but his.
Mr. MacGregor: In recent weeks that view has been expressed loudly, clearly and at length. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Tomorrow's debate will provide another opportunity for hon. Members to express my hon. Friend's view.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: While I am sure that there is widespread agreement in the House about the murderous activities of Saddam Hussein, surely there are profound and genuinely sincere differences of view about President Bush's interpretation of resolution 678 and other matters relating to the middle east crisis. It is disgraceful that we are not to have a two-day debate because every hon. Member must have some constituents serving with the military forces in Saudi Arabia. If, because of the sleekit way in which arrangements for the debate have been handled, we cannot have a two-day debate, may we ensure that every speaker in the debate is confined to 10 minutes so that most of us who have constituents out there may at least get a chance to voice our genuinely sincere views on this deeply worrying affair?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's procedural point about tomorrow's debate is not a matter for me. However, I am sure that his suggestion has been heard. It is important to stress again that the House is, absolutely rightly, being given the opportunity to debate this matter at the earliest convenient opportunity on our return. Obviously, it will not by a long way be the last occasion on which we debate these matters.
Mr. John Biffen: In view of the evident deep feeling about tomorrow's debate, and because historically on such occasions every opportunity is given for minority views to be expressed, will my right hon. Friend at least discuss with the Opposition the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule?
Mr. MacGregor: We can certainly consider that matter through the usual channels.
Ms. Clare Short: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House to reconsider? This Parliament will be brought into total disrepute if we do not have a vote on the matter of war in the Gulf. We saw what happened in the American Senate where each member had to put his points on the line. Under this procedure, power is concentrated in the Executive and there is no way in which the Executive can be made accountable to our constituents on the question of a war that could mean not just the deaths of our service men but a horrendous war in the middle east. This is not the mother of Parliaments if that is the way in which we conduct our business. It is just a blanket for the Executive to do whatever they wish.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I think that this is the right way to proceed. The very strong majority view was perfectly clear from the debate and the vote on this procedural method that we had before the Christmas recess. What we recommend for tomorrow will enable all views to be expressed and will also enable that message to be made clear.
Dr. Cunningham: It may be for the convenience of the House for me to say that on Wednesday, which is an Opposition Supply day, we have set down for debate the crisis in the hospital service, and the consequences for the British economy and people of electricity privatisation.

Rail Accident (Cannon Street)
3.52 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the railway accident that occurred at Cannon Street station on Tuesday 8 January.
At about 8.44 last Tuesday morning, the 7.58 Sevenoaks to Cannon Street train collided with the buffer stops at Cannon Street station. The effect of the impact was most severe in the fifth and sixth coaches of the 10-coach train. One passenger died and more than 200 were injured.
The House will want to join me in expressing our sympathy to the bereaved and our hopes for the speedy recovery of the injured. I also pay tribute to the professionalism of the emergency services. The response by all involved was magnificent.
British Rail has accepted responsibility for the accident and is carrying out its own internal inquiry. The British Transport police are also conducting an investigation.
Officers from the Health and Safety Executive, including Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, attended the scene of the accident immediately. After consultation with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, I have appointed the deputy chief inspecting officer of railways to carry out this inquiry under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871. His inquiry will be wholly independent and will be held in public. The report will be published. I have asked him to report to me as quickly as possible. British Rail will, of course, act immediately should the need for any urgent measures emerge during the various investigations.
Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's investigation began on the day of the accident. The train was examined and some testing took place before it was removed from the station. The train has now been moved to a British Rail depot where British Rail engineers have been conducting further examinations and tests under the inspectorate's supervision. The forensic capabilities of the Health and Safety Executive will be at the disposal of the inspectorate, if they are needed. The House will appreciate that these examinations and tests are being undertaken extremely thoroughly. The cause of the accident is not yet clear and it is unwise to speculate on the conclusions of the inquiry until all the evidence is available.
There has, however, been widespread speculation about the age of this rolling stock, which is some of the oldest on BR, and about the number of passengers on the train. The inquiry will of course be considering these aspects, but there appear to be no grounds for concluding at this stage that the age of the rolling stock was a material factor in causing the accident.
There has also been comment about the consequences of the train being heavily loaded, with many passengers standing. In his report on the Clapham accident, Sir Anthony Hidden accepted the view of safety experts that, in that accident, standing passengers were at no greater risk of death or injury than those who were seated and that if the trains had been overloaded, those passengers having to stand as a result would not have been placed at any greater risk. Nevertheless, he recommended that BR should ensure that overall train loading criteria were achieved and that the criteria should be kept under review. In response to this recommendation, BR made it clear that

623
strong demand growth has created a problem of overcrowding on some routes, and that it is committed to tackling this through investment in new rolling stock. I understand the very natural concern about overcrowding. I can assure the House that the inquiry will consider the number of passengers that were on the train and any implications that this may have had.
These commuter services have some of the oldest trains, but neither the Government nor BR is complacent about this. We have approved both the replacement of the present trains with new rolling stock which has higher capacity and the lengthening of the platforms on the stations they will use, in order to give passengers a better quality of service. The first tranche of the order was approved by the Government in 1989 and is now being manufactured. Further orders are among the highest priorities within BR's corporate plan.
More generally, overcrowding is being addressed through the investment programme, which is running at about £1 million a day on Network SouthEast alone and is due to continue at this level. Much of the expenditure is already authorised by the Government and much of the investment is already under way. Timing of achievement of the train loading standards will depend on factors such as the capacity of the manufacturing industry, the size of the investment programme that can be managed effectively, and changes in demand for rail services and patterns of demand growth.
British Rail's top priority is safety. Railways are already one of the safest means of transport, and British Rail is working to develop an even stronger safety culture throughout the organisation. The board has undertaken a comprehensive review of all safety procedures and training.
Finally, I should like to assure the House that there is no financial constraint on necessary and cost-effective safety expenditure. Last July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) announced a further increase in British Rail's external financing limit for 1990–91, which allows the board to spend £70 million on safety expenditure in this year alone. This year's PSO grant was also increased, largely to take account of additional safety expenditure. In our public expenditure plans for the next three years, we have endorsed in full British Rail's planned expenditure of some £330 million on additional safety measures. There is no question of improving efficiency at the expense of safety. Nor is there any lack of investment, with railway investment now at its highest level for 30 years and a further increase planned for the next three years.
Mr. John Prescott: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer the deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of the man who was killed and to all those who were injured in the terrible tragedy at Cannon Street station last Tuesday morning.
As in recent and terrible tragedies—King's Cross, Clapham and Purley—we record yet again our greatest admiration for our emergency services, which appear always to exceed what we can expect from them. There is no doubt that the work of the emergency services in responding so swiftly and acting so promptly with such skill and courage in the most difficult circumstances saved
624
lives. Once again, the House and the entire nation will admire their sheer professionalism and dedication. We are eternally indebted to them.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, although historically rail safety has been at a high level and an increasing one, in recent years safety standards have been falling? In comparing the first half of the 1980s with the second half, we see that general train accidents—this is according to the railway inspectorate's report—have increased by more than 20 per cent. Collisions with buffers —this is relevant to the Cannon Street tragedy—have increased by 30 per cent. I recognise that the inspectorate's report states that there has been a fall in significant railway accidents, but that information is incorrectly presented. That was confirmed by the inspectorate this morning. I hope that the Secretary of State will discuss with the Health and Safety Executive an accurate method of presenting railway safety statistics so that there is no disagreement between us about the facts.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the excessive number of injuries at Cannon Street last week was influenced by overcrowding? The Hidden report stated that those standing in railway carriages were at no greater risk than those seated, but the reality is that the greater the number of passengers on a train the greater is the possibility of serious injury. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Hidden was concerned about the safety of standing passengers and that his report contained the recommendation that in carriages of the sort that were involved in the Cannon Street tragedy no more than 10 per cent. of passengers should be standing? With that sort of rolling stock, that means that no more than 16 passengers should be standing in each coach .
I conducted a survey last Wednesday and another one this morning between 7.30 and 9 am. The results of this morning's survey showed that on six separate journeys between Cannon Street and London Bridge this morning there were over 120 passengers standing in each carriage and not the 16 as recommended in the Hidden report. Does the Secretary of State accept that the British Railways Board assured the House and the Department of Transport on 20 August 1990 in a written statement that the recommendation concerning overcrowding had already been implemented? That misled the House, and that has been demonstrated by my surveys and by the daily experience of thousands of people. I drew that to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention when we met last Wednesday. Will he inform the House of the explanation that British Rail has given for the deception?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the rolling stock that was involved in the crash at Cannon Street was over 40 years old and that some of the stock that continues to come into Cannon Street on the route in question is over 65 years old? Indeed, the age profile of Network SouthEast's stock is the oldest of any regional network in the United Kingdom or, indeed, in the world. That is the direct result of an inadequate Networker replacement investment programme. There can be no other explanation.
Does the Secretary of State realise that the average age of Network SouthEast's rolling stock is twice that of the stock of the northern region? That is primarily because the financial arrangements affecting British Rail allow the northern regions, through their passenger transport authorities, a subsidy of nearly £100 million a year to replace their rolling stock. That subsidy is denied to the

625
south-east region. I believe that, if we want safer stock, it is better to replace it as quickly as possible and change the silly rule that subsidies can be given to replace stock in the north but not in the south-east region, which is the most congested network in the United Kingdom. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider the rule.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail proposed in 1986, during the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's inquiry into Network SouthEast, that overcrowding could be reduced—the Department was aware of this in 1986—by lengthening platforms to enable 12-coach Networker trains to be introduced? That would have required extra investment of £200 million, which is equivalent to the amount that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to take from the public service obligation tranche for Network SouthEast. Is not this the time for the Secretary of State to reverse that policy so that an emergency programme can be introduced to replace stock and to provide more comfort and safety?
The Secretary of State will have the full support of the House and of the public—particularly as he is new to the job—if he will review the crazy financial framework within which British Rail operates, which forces it to decide projects on the basis of the rate of financial return that they will offer, rather than the quality of safety and service that they will provide. In the past few years, British Rail management has become obsessed with meeting the Government's priority of producing a privatised railway rather than a safe, good-quality railway of the kind that the travelling public want.
Mr. Rifkind: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks about the quality of the emergency services and the superb contribution that they made on the occasion in question, as one would have expected.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that British Rail safety standards have fallen in recent years. I cannot support that interpretation. In fact, the total number of fatalities has been falling and last year the number was the lowest since 1983. We naturally hope that that trend will continue.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to review the way in which railway safety statistics are prepared and provided. I shall be happy to consider any specific points that he wishes to make in that respect and see what improvements can be made.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the injuries inflicted on passengers in the Cannon Street incident might have been influenced by the number travelling on the train. There is no evidence as yet that the accident was caused by the number of passengers on the train. However, no doubt the inquiry will consider whether the severity of the injuries and the number of people injured were influenced by that factor. Many of the passengers who were standing in carriages at the time of the impact had been sitting throughout the journey but chose to stand as the train arrived in the station. That often happens on rail journeys, and it is something on which the inquiry may want to comment.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the progress report published by British Rail some time ago which suggested that Hidden's recommendation on overcrowding had been implemented. He was right to draw attention to the inaccuracy of that claim, for it contained at least an ambiguity. British Rail intended to say that it had accepted the need to implement that recommendation, but I agree
626
that the way in which the progress report was written implied that it had already been implemented. That point needs to be corrected.
As to the age of rolling stock and the lack of investment, many take the view that, during the 1970s and in the early 1980s, there was less investment in British Rail under successive Governments than might have been appropriate, but that has changed considerably over the past five or six years. At present, Network SouthEast intends to invest more than £1,300 million over the next three years, which represents a 28 per cent. increase over the past three years. That indicates the priority being given to improvements not just by British Rail as a whole but particularly within Network SouthEast—including modernisation of the rolling stock, which is relevant to the Cannon Street incident.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the way in which proposed investment is appraised has a damaging effect on safety. He ought to be aware that proposed safety expenditure is not subject to the same investment criteria as other investment. When expenditure on safety has been required, British Rail and the Government have an excellent record, which I am happy to defend.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the statement relates to the distressing accident at Cannon Street, and that right hon. and hon. Members should not ask questions on wider issues.
Mr. Bob Dunn: My constituents will be reassured by the Secretary of State's confirmation today that the new Networker rolling stock is still on target for introduction in September 1991.
To put matters in perspective, can my right hon. and learned Friend say what proportion of recent collisions was caused by the use of old rolling stock, how many collisions involved new rolling stock and in how many cases the cause was not clear?
Mr. Rifkind: I can certainly confirm that the Networker programme for Kent inner suburban services, including Sevenoaks, is on schedule. The first 400 vehicles are on order, with delivery due to start in September 1991.
With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question—buffer accidents and the relevance of the age of the stock—it is difficult to draw general conclusions. For example, the House might be interested to know that the provisional details for 1990 for passenger train incidents involving buffer stop collisions suggest that, of the 23 collisions that took place, seven involved old stock that was comparable in age to that in the Cannon Street incident and as many as 10 involved new rolling stock. Details are not yet available for the remaining six collisions. Clearly there can be a number of reasons for accidents of this kind. Sadly, even new rolling stock is not exempted from the risk of incidents of the kind that we have experienced in the past year.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy and thanks. Given the apparent figures every day—I looked down from the signal box at London Bridge station three weeks ago—for the number of people standing on trains and for loading the front part of the train with standing passengers, not merely in the last few minutes of the journey, it is not sufficient to wait for technical changes. It

627
is necessary for instructions and a change of practice to be implemented soon if injuries are to be minimised. That is a matter of common sense, apart from Sir Anthony Hidden's recommendations.
Also, the Secretary of State could usefully assure the House and the travelling public, first, that the recommendations about the rolling stock being appropriate to reduce the amount of impact damage have been implemented and, secondly, that trains coming into termini have back-up procedures for slowing them down and stopping them, because that was clearly one of the features of this incident.
Mr. Rifkind: I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said. Certainly a significant number of the passengers on the train joined at London Bridge, thereby swelling the numbers for the last, albeit short, stage of the journey. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw our attention to that factor. The design of the rolling stock and its reaction on impact is a technical matter about which the inquiry may wish to make recommendations, and British Rail will clearly be anxious to identify whether improvements can be made. New rolling stock is being introduced on this service, as on all the other services in Network SouthEast, and it will have the benefit of the latest design technology information.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: A number of my constituents are still in hospital recovering from this tragic accident and I wish to extend my sympathy to them, to their relatives and to all others involved in this unhappy situation.
I wish to raise three points with my right hon. and learned Friend. First, are the buffers at Cannon Street station of the same high quality, with the same ability to withstand impact, as those at other London termini? If not, can action be taken to improve them? Secondly, will my right hon. and learned Friend hold urgent talks with the chairman of British Rail on whether the programme to renew rolling stock, which is in hand, can be accelerated? I accept that this accident may not have been directly related to old rolling stock, but there is no doubt that new rolling stock is, as one would expect, safer for passengers in impacts of this kind. Quite apart from the safety factors, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, in his new job, is fully aware of the low standards of accommodation provided for constituents travelling from this part of south-east England. We are at the end of the programme for renewing rolling stock and I can assure him that if the programme could be accelerated it would have a welcome effect on millions of people.
Finally, can my right hon. and learned Friend give us any idea of how rapidly the initial findings of the inquiry will be made public? I consider it most important that the ritual of inquiry be carried out rapidly and that the public are given information with expediency.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I understand that the buffers have virtually been removed by the railway inspectorate so that they can be properly examined, as their design may be significant with regard to the inquiries.
My hon. Friend also asked whether the replacement of rolling stock could be accelerated. Apart from the question of resources, there is the question of the manufacturing
628
capacity of those replacing the stock, but I believe that good progress is being made. At present, over 80 per cent. of the Network SouthEast fleet is either less than 15 years old or refurbished to modern standards. Having said that, however, I agree with my hon. Friend that in some parts of Network SouthEast the quality of rolling stock is less impressive than that in many other parts of the country. That must be addressed, seriously and constructively, within the framework of British Rail's overall requirements.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the findings of the inquiry would be made public. The most important requirement will be for any interim recommendations to be made available to British Rail so that the necessary steps can be taken. The report will be made public in due course, and, as soon as it is available, it will be made public to my hon. Friend and to others interested in these matters.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to my written question and the answer given, on 15 March 1988, by the then Minister for Public Transport, the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell)? My question, which can be found in column 495 of the Official Report, concerned brake failures on multiple unit trains. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in his reply, his hon. Friend said that the matter would be dealt with in the forthcoming report on the Walton-on-Naze accident, which happened on 12 August 1987?
Is not it a fact that that accident occurred when a modern sliding-door multiple unit electric train came into that one-end station at about 50 mph—fortunately with only 12 passengers? Is not it also a fact that the report on the accident has not yet been published, although the accident took place three and a half years ago? If that is not suppression, does not the delay illustrate the fact that the Government are less concerned with safety first than they pretend?
Mr. Rifkind: I am concerned about the fact that the report has not yet been published, but its non-publication is not for the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The person responsible for drafting it was seconded as an assessor to the Clapham inquiry, and has therefore not finished the drafting.
Mr. Spearing: That is not good enough.
Mr. Rifkind: I am not suggesting that it is good enough; I am explaining the background. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of two things: first, that any lessons to be learnt from that inquiry have already been passed on to British Rail; and, secondly, that the brake that failed in the incident that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned involved an entirely different design from that at Cannon Street. Having said that, let me add that I share his desire to see the report published as soon as possible. I hope that the inspector in question will be able to finish drafting it so that it can be published in the next few weeks or months. As soon as that is done, it will be published.
Dame Peggy Fenner: My right hon. and learned Friend has accepted the truth of comments made about rolling stock in the south-east. Does he realise that commuters from the Medway towns stand throughout their journey every morning? There is no question of their standing merely from London Bridge to Cannon Street.

629
Will my right hon. and learned Friend himself investigate the claim that manufacturers would not he able to accelerate the provision of rolling stock? Surely, during a period of recession, we can expect manufacturers to expedite its provision.
Mr. Rifkind: A number of factors have to be taken into account, but my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, in addition to the 400 vehicles already on order, with delivery due to start in September next, the project also includes £120 million of fixed works programmes, with platform lengthening at 63 stations out of Cannon Street and Charing Cross. That implies the approval of over 400 additional vehicles to complete the replacement of the current fleet and to cater for growth in demand.
Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the last 15 years hon. Members have been given assurances by successive chairmen of British Rail that all the outdated rolling stock on Network SouthEast would be replaced? However, Kent suburban routes are still operating with single compartment, non-corridor coaches that date back to before world war two. In view of our past disappointments, is the Secretary of State able to say clearly whether he has a target date for the replacement of all outdated rolling stock on Network SouthEast? If he has, what, please, is it?
Mr. Rifkind: I said earlier that it could be argued that there was insufficient investment in the railways in the 1970s and the early 1980s. I am happy to say that during the last five or six years there has been a significant change and that there will continue to be change in the right direction. Since 1985, the average age of the Network SouthEast fleet has been reduced from 24 to 19 years. We expect the age of the fleet to continue to be reduced and we hope that all the older stock will be replaced within a reasonable period. Substantial progress is being made. The investment resources available to Network SouthEast alone are of a very high order—£1.3 billion over the next three years. That is not a small sum of money by any standards.
Mr. Roger Sims: Unhappily, a number of my constituents were involved in the crash. I know that both they and their families wish to endorse the comments that have been made about the prompt and efficient reaction of the emergency services. Thousands of my constituents use the services to London Bridge, Charing Cross and Cannon Street every day, as do both I and members of my family.
There was considerable concern when my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor announced the phasing out of the public service obligation grant. It was felt that it would lead to substantial fare increases and to economies that might affect safety standards. My right hon. and learned Friend will understand if last week both of those fears appeared to have been realised. Will he reconsider the phasing out of the public service obligation grant?
I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) about the inquiry. Most of us were under the impression that the purpose of a buffer was to do precisely what its name implies: to absorb the impact if a train fails to come to a complete
630
stop. In this case, that does not seem to have happened. One therefore has to question whether the buffers were up to the job.
Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, he is right to draw attention to the apparent failure of the buffers to do the job for which they were designed. The inquiry will wish to consider that point.
The point that I wish to emphasise most regarding the public service obligation grant is that whether it goes up or down is not relevant to the question of safety. That is determined by quite different considerations. My hon. Friend may have noticed that, in yesterday's edition of the Observer, British Rail's safety director, Mr. Maurice Holmes, was quoted as saying:
"We have not been refused money for any essential safety scheme. Where we are not progressing as fast as we would like, the obstacles have been practical ones."
My hon. Friend can therefore rest assured that the Government have always given the greatest priority to safety expenditure, on both Network SouthEast and other sectors of the rail network.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Secretary of State accept from me that this accident has increased the widespread unease among our constituents about the decrepit, antiquated and often squalid state of the railways in London and the south-east? That unease was exacerbated when they heard of the impossible hours being worked by engineers, as revealed at the Clapham inquiry. Does he accept that the policy of eliminating public subsidy to the railways is crazily mistaken and that until it is altered the public will not believe that profit is not being put before service and safety?
Mr. Rifkind: We are conscious of the need to ensure that those who carry out tasks on the rail network are not put under strain or are expected to work unnecessary hours. Overtime has been reduced and British Rail hopes to make further progress on that matter. The hon. Gentleman's point is well understood.
Mr. James Coachman: My right hon. and learned Friend was right to highlight the number of people who changed trains at London Bridge for the last half mile into Cannon Street. A number of those who did so would have been my constituents who travel from Rainham, which is one of the busiest commuter stations in south-east England. The people of Rainham, who pay about £1,500 a year for the privilege of standing all the way into London every day, are dismayed by the deferment to 1995 of the Networker trains for the outer suburban lines to my constituency and beyond. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the original programme will be reinstated as soon as possible so that they can expect the Networker trains at the same time as other commuters in Kent?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall refer my hon. Friend's point to British Rail when I am next in contact with it to ascertain its view on the matter. There are a number of demands on British Rail's investment programme. The Government have initiated the largest investment programme in British Rail for no less than 30 years, which should ensure substantial improvements to the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituents and to those of hon. Members from other parts of the country.
Mr. Tony Banks: As a Scot, is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman impressed by the amount of all-party anger in the south-east about the way in which our commuters are treated when they travel on British Rail? Although we understand that we must await the outcome of the inquiry, does he seriously expect us to believe that there is no connection between the age of the rolling stock and the amount of carnage and injury that appears to have resulted from a train hitting the buffers at 5 mph? Will he give us an assurance that all rolling stock of that vintage will be taken out of service while immediate investigations and examinations are made to ensure that nothing similar occurs? Although that might result in some dislocation, it is far better to be temporarily dislocated than long-term impaired.
Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that if any rolling stock is considered to be unsafe, whatever its age and however modern or old, it is immediately withdrawn from service. That is the criterion that should be applied. The design of the rolling stock may be relevant to the nature of the injuries that were caused, but we have no reason to believe that its age was a contributory cause of the accident. Those matters will be examined by the inspectorate in its inquiry. Its views will be made public and if there is any contrary evidence it will have to be fully considered and presented, not just to the inspectorate but to the public as a whole.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Thousands of my constituents stand on the trains every day. They find it almost incomprehensible that they should be charged the same as for sitting. At various airports, the buses that meet aircraft are designed to enable people to stand in safety and comfort. Is it beyond the wit of British Rail to ensure a system whereby there is a difference in the fare charged for those who sit and those who stand, and that some of the rolling stock is designed for people to be able to stand in comfort? As that is what they will always have to do, why cannot they do it in safety and comfort?
Mr. Rifkind: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, but normally an airline knows in advance how many passengers it will carry. It knows that from the moment that the journey begins, whereas there is some unpredictability for railway services. I shall draw my hon. Friend's point to British Rail's attention.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Although the Secretary of State makes great play of the permission to borrow money to deal with safety, he ignores the fact that safety is made up of many different factors, such as the pressure caused by the closure of maintenance depots, the pressure on men to work long hours and the pressure on people who are crushed into wholly inadequate rolling stock. All those factors contribute to accidents. Will he guarantee that the position will change within the next two years? Companies are capable of building whatever rolling stock is necessary; and until the Government sold them off they were highly efficient.
Mr. Rifkind: I have already informed the House that we have the highest investment programme for over 30 years. The fact that I am able to say that indicates that the performance of the Labour Government in investing in the railways was not impressive.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I represent a constituency in which up to half of the working population commutes to London every day? A crash such as last week's increases people's apprehensions considerably and those apprehensions have been played upon. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accentuate the fact that a reduction in operating subsidies does not have an impact on capital investment or on safety? He has told the House that capital investment is the highest on record and that the safety recommendations in the Hidden report have been met in full.
My right hon. and learned Friend is new to his job and therefore may not be fully aware of the resentment felt in Kent that we are the last in the queue for the introduction of the Networkers. Will he take seriously the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and get a move on so that we can have the Networkers even earlier than September?
Mr. Rifkind: I note the point that my hon. Friend fairly makes. Any reduction in the operating subsidy releases resources for investment. Therefore, the investment programme is positively helped when fewer resources are required for operating purposes.
Mr. John Garrett: The obsolescence of the rolling stock may not have contributed to the accident, but it certainly contributed to the injuries. Those of us who regularly travel on the Kent suburban lines know from reports of earlier accidents that the rolling stock simply splinters on impact. It is grossly unsafe. Is not it true that the Government have done nothing in the past decade to improve safety on those lines, tackle overcrowding or invest in new rolling stock?
Mr. Rifkind: That is simply untrue. I accept the hon. Gentleman's remark that the design of the train might have contributed to the nature of the injuries. Clearly the inquiry will comment on that, and we shall consider with great interest what it says. However, the suggestion that nothing has been done about safety flies in the face of the evidence. We have endorsed £330 million of additional expenditure on safety over the next three years. During the past decade the Government have not refused permission for expenditure on any safety proposal by British Rail. The hon. Gentleman must be a little more objective in such matters.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of and sympathises with the anxieties of travellers on, for example, the north Kent line about the conditions in which they travel. He will be aware that events such as last week's accident heighten the anxieties not only of travellers but of their families, the apprehension with which people travel every day and fears for their safety. When my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Public Transport makes his most welcome visit to Margate in the spring to launch the exhibition of the new rolling stock, will he be in a position to assure my constituents that neither they nor the Government will have to tolerate any delay in the introduction of the new rolling stock to the further regions of the north Kent line?
Mr. Rifkind: I note carefully what my hon. Friend says. Of course, we shall do what we can to ensure that progress in replacing the rolling stock will continue so that the more acceptable situation which my hon. Friend desires will come about as soon as possible.
Dr. John Marek: Is the Secretary of State aware that the rolling stock on the further reaches of the north Kent line previously consisted of four-abreast seating in open compartments with plenty of leg room and that the new rolling stock will be five abreast with space for the knees available only by slotting the knees into a hole in the back of the seat in front? Does he consider that the new configuration is more or less comfortable? Does he believe that such a sardine-like arrangement is safe?
Mr. Rifkind: I would have to try it out before it would be safe to venture an opinion on its relative merits compared with the older design. Clearly the comfort of the travelling public is an important consideration. I hope that, in designing new rolling stock, British Rail will seek to improve the comfort of passengers rather than reduce it. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of British Rail.
Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take every opportunity to reassure the travelling public that, despite terrible incidents such as the one at Cannon Street and the one two years ago at Clapham Junction in my constituency, it is safe to travel by train and that they should continue to use the service with confidence? Will he ask the inquiry and/or British Rail to look into two aspects regarding standing on trains? First, what would the impact have been in this instance had the train been one of the many trains on Network SouthEast that travel with half the number of coaches which they should have, but with the same number of passengers packed into the reduced number of coaches? Secondly, should it be more of an enforceable offence to open train doors while the train is still in motion? That is a danger to the public on the platform and encourages more people to stand up as the train approaches the platform
Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the inspectorate will consider each of my hon. Friend's points, which may be relevant to the safety of the travelling public. He is certainly right to emphasise that the railways continue to be one of the safest means of travel. Earlier I mentioned the number of fatalities on the railways—some 60 people killed during the year compared with more than 5,000 on the roads. Therefore, the railways remain one of the safest means of transport in the United Kingdom.
Mr. John P. Smith (Vale of Glamorgan): Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to recognise the splendid work of our train drivers in difficult and, sometimes, dangerous conditions for little reward? As he seems to have ruled out the possibility of the age of the rolling stock having caused the accident at Cannon Street, will he assure us that the train driver will not be used as a scapegoat for British Rail's inadequacies, as has happened in the past?
Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to pay tribute to railway drivers as a whole who perform a valuable service for the travelling public. I will not speculate on the cause of the accident. Whether there were mechanical, human or other reasons will be for the inspectorate to draw to the attention of British Rail and the public in its conclusions.
Mr. David Shaw: I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I wrote to him shortly after his appointment to express concern about the delays in implementing the new rolling stock in Kent generally, and that he will do all in his power to speed up the programme, which is wholly unsatisfactory. Many trains in Kent are cancelled because of the inadequacies of the rolling stock. Often there are failings, whether with brakes or other parts, and, as a result, trains must be withdrawn from service. Alternatively, trains are delayed or temporarily taken out of service while repairs are effected on the spot. In these circumstances, the inquiry must reassure our constituents and Kent commuters as soon as possible that the carriages in service are safe. To alleviate all the anxieties expressed today, can we speed up the programme for the replacement of these awful old carriages?
Mr. Rifkind: I am concerned by the great dissatisfaction among my hon. Friends, other hon. Members and their constituents who use these services. It is a source of encouragement that Network SouthEast has embarked on a massive reinvestment programme. Inevitably it takes a little time to see the results of reinvestment. The sums invested in the production of new rolling stock in Kent and elsewhere in the south-east are of an enormous and almost unprecedented order. Therefore, my hon. Friend's constituents can look forward to a more acceptable and satisfactory service in the years to come.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Minister tell us by what factor the longitudinal crushing strength of the modern stock will be increased over the stock involved in the accident? Does he intend to introduce inter-city type energy-absorbing buffers at terminal stations throughout the InterCity region where they are needed instead of the lighter type, which are less effective and which were involved in the accident?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should understand that, even though the accident occurred in London, it sent the message to all commuters throughout England, Scotland and Wales who suffer from overcrowding that there is potential for accidents when trains are massively overcrowded. All commuter services on British Rail are now overcrowded, but the Government have not taken sufficient action soon enough to remedy it. We need more trains—with more seats—that run more frequently to meet demand. We know that some of the figures on investment are economical with the truth, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can present us with investment figures that ensure that coaches start appearing in London, the south-east and the rest of the nation.
Mr. Rifkind: Coaches are appearing. In recent years ever-increasing numbers of new rolling stock have appeared throughout the United Kingdom.
The early part of the hon. Gentleman's question referred to the design of buffers and the rolling stock, which are clearly matters for British Rail to consider. I hope that it will take into account any recommendations made by the inquiry and by previous inquiries when considering the future design of buffers and rolling stock.

Orders of the Day

  Severn Bridges Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.41 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is intended to authorise the provision of a second tolled road bridge over the Severn estuary between England and Wales, and of the road links needed to connect it to the existing motorway network. It also provides the necessary framework to enable the new bridge to be privately financed through a concession agreement between the Secretary of State and a private concessionaire.
  The scheme embodied in the Bill is important, first, because of the long-awaited improvement in communications that the new bridge will provide between England and Wales, and, secondly, because it represents a further significant development of the Government's policy of encouraging the fullest participation by the private sector in providing the country's transport infrastructure. Before I describe in detail the background and content of the Bill, I should like to set the scene in terms of that wider initiative.
  The Channel tunnel was the original inspiration and that was followed quickly by the success of a privately funded proposal for the Dartford-Thurrock bridge. I have recently been to see work on that bridge and I commend not only the contractors responsible but the local authorities that were previously involved in providing services for the speed of implementation of the construction work. The bridge is progressing well and will be open to traffic this autumn—the first major highway project in Britain in modern times to have been financed and built by the private sector. The next such scheme is, of course, the second Severn crossing, the Bill for which we are dealing with.
  Looking to the future, we are assessing the tenders received for the Birmingham northern relief road, and are considering proposals for new road capacity to meet the longer-term needs of the Birmingham to Manchester corridor. We have also been consulting on six further schemes as possible candidates for private finance to which the industry has responded very encouragingly. In Scotland, bids are being considered for the Skye bridge and there is much interest being shown in the proposal for a privately financed link between the A74 and M8. That is, by the very nature of road construction, a long-term policy.
  I am, therefore delighted to report that so much has been achieved in such a short time and that the private sector is responding so positively to the challenge. What is crucially new about this policy lies in the creation of a commercial link between the demands of road users and the provision that will meet that demand. Private firms will be able, subject to appropriate safeguards, to build new roads where they have identified that road users need the new capacity or will gain from shorter journey times. In other words, we are extending the advantages and
  636
  disciplines of the market further into transport provision. That is in the long-term interests of road users themselves and of the economy at large.
  The House will, of course, know that the New Roads and Street Works Bill, which has been introduced in another place, includes proposals for new procedures for the authorisation of tolled roads without the need for the present hybrid Bill procedures. Those proposals are aimed specifically to facilitate the involvement of private promoters in future road schemes. They would enable privately funded toll roads to be authorised in the same way as conventional trunk roads are now, under the procedures laid down in the Highways Act 1980—after public inquiry and subsequent orders made by the relevant Ministers. I should, therefore, explain to the House why we are asking Parliament separately for the powers set out in the Severn Bridges Bill rather than relying on the new powers that the New Roads and Street Works Bill would offer.
  There are, essentially, two reasons. First, the scheme for the second Severn bridge involves—as I shall explain later—the repeal and replacement of the legislation that authorises the tolling of the existing Severn bridge in order to provide a common tolling and operating regime for both bridges. To do this, a separate Bill would have been necessary in any case, but to try to seek powers for the scheme partly through a Bill, and partly through the new order-making procedures, would have made no sense. It would have been merely a recipe for delay and inconsistency.
  It follows that the second key reason for seeking all the necessary powers in the Bill is to enable the provision of the new bridge to go ahead as quickly as possible. The only practical alternative, of a limited hybrid Bill followed by the initiation of the order-making process, would almost certainly mean at least a year's delay. As it is, we hope —subject, obviously, to the outcome of the consideration of the Bill by this House and elsewhere—that construction of the new bridge can start next winter, with completion around the end of 1995.
  The existing Severn bridge was opened in 1966, 25 years ago, and throughout that period has provided the main road link between south Wales and England, as part of the M4. As such, it has assumed a crucial importance for the economy of the area, especially perhaps in the Principality. As a result, the bridge, which now carries an average of more than 50,000 vehicles a day, has increasingly in recent years become a victim of its own success. Congestion is now becoming a regular event at peak times of the day and at holiday weekends. That is essentially due to sheer lack of capacity at the bridge—which has only two traffic lanes in each direction—rather than to the transient delays incurred by the collection of tolls. The problems have also been complicated by the need to strengthen the bridge to enable it to carry the amount of modern traffic which now uses it, but which was unforeseen at the time it was designed. In addition, high winds can require restrictions on the use of the bridge by high-sided vehicles and the lack of a full hard shoulder exacerbates the difficulties caused by breakdowns and accidents.
  Given those developments, the Government decided in 1986 to begin preparations for a second road crossing of the estuary. Following earlier extensive feasibility studies, it was concluded that the optimum choice for such a crossing would be a bridge across the English Stones, some three miles downstream of the present bridge. After

  637
  further preparatory work, preliminary bids to provide the new bridge were invited in December 1988. In the light of the successful outcome of the competition to provide the third Dartford-Thurrock crossing, bidders were asked to submit proposals both for a privately funded scheme and for a conventional, publicly financed one: in other words, a scheme involving design, financing, construction and maintenance by the private sector or the more conventional route whereby there is competition between contractors for the design and construction of the bridge.
  Eight would-be promoters responded and a shortlist of four was invited in April 1989 to submit detailed tenders, again on both private and public finance bases. After an intensive evaluation of the ensuing proposals, the Government decided that the privately funded bid from a consortium formed by John Laing and GTM-Entrepose offered the best overall value for money of all the proposals submitted. It also offered the way ahead to the earliest practicable date for the completion of the new bridge, which, as I have already said, could be around the end of 1995. The provisional award of the concession to the consortium—Severn River Crossing plc—was announced last April. That was followed up on 29 October 1990 by the formal signature of a concession agreement with the company. The financing of the consortium includes up to £150 million from the European investment bank. Copies of the agreement were placed in the House Library before Christmas. Whether or not that concession agreement comes into effect depends on approval of the Bill, which is now before the House and will shortly be before another place.
  In parallel with the competition to provide the new bridge, work continued on the development of the design of the motorway links that are intended to connect it to the existing network. Those roads would be provided under separate, publicly funded contracts to be arranged in the usual way by the Department of Transport for the link roads in Avon to the M4 and M5 and by the Welsh Office for the link road in Gwent to the M4. The two roads in Avon would be to dual two-lane motorway standard—thus providing four lanes each way in total—and the road in Gwent would be to dual three-lane motorway standard, matching the provision on the new bridge.
  At each stage of the development of those proposals there has been extensive local consultation on all aspects of the proposed new roads—
  Mr. Roger Knapman: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 31. While congratulating my hon. Friend, his Department and its officials on the detailed and largely successful negotiations they have had with the Gloucester Harbour Trustees, the British Waterways Association and others, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that when making the regulations he will bear it in mind that ships of up to 10,000 tonnes dead weight currently use the port of Sharpness in my constituency? If the regulations referred to a figure lower than 10,000 tonnes, that could have an adverse effect on the port.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly not the intention of the Department of Transport or the Welsh Office to frustrate shipping already using the estuary. I am aware that ships of up to 10,000 tonnes dead
  638
  weight already use the estuary and port in his constituency. We have no intention of preventing that. I assure him that the Department—
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
  Mr. Freeman: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? I did not quite hear what he said.
  Mr. Morgan: I just wanted to tell the Minister that if he had forgotten the name of the port in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), which he appeared to have done, it was Sharpness.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I had not forgotten the name. The point I was making applies not only to the port in my hon. Friend's constituency but to all ports on the estuary up river from the proposed bridge. I am assuring not only my hon. Friend, but the whole House, that the Bill does not attempt to frustrate any shipping currently using the River Severn. We shall continue to consult not only with the Gloucester Harbour Trustees and the British Waterways Association, but with all other organisations that have a legitimate interest not only in shipping but in wildlife and other amenities on the River Severn. All is not lost. I understand what my hon. Friend said and I hope that he is satisfied with that response.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister referred to the fact that the access roads will be publicly funded. Those roads are an integral part of the scheme. Will he explain the logic in saying that the access roads, which are provided purely to get to and from the bridge, will be provided at public expense, but the profit from the toll on the bridge will go to a private firm? Will he explain why he differentiated between them in that way?
  Mr. Freeman: I shall try. The road construction programme, which amounts to about £200 million, will provide the access roads, use of which will not be tolled, but the bridge—
  Mr. Alan Williams: The roads will not be going anywhere.
  Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman says that the roads are not going anywhere, but that could also apply to traffic using the M4, M5 or the roads in Wales. All the access roads are untolled and there is no provision to toll them. There were two stages in the Department's consideration of how the bridge should be built, financed and operated. The first stage was to carry out a competitive bidding procedure. The John Laing consortium was chosen as it offered the best possible deal for the motorist, because the lowest total volume—calculated by the number of tolls and the number of vehicles using the bridge—would be charged. The consortium required the lowest revenue payback. We then compared the winning tenderer, Laing, with the other option—the Department building the bridge and its being tolled as the first bridge is at present. We calculated that it was in the taxpayers' best interests for the private sector consortium bid to proceed. Although the consortium has to earn profits, which are taxed and the revenues then flow to the Government, the extra cost incurred and the slightly longer period in which the motorist would have to pay tolls in order that the expenses of the successful tenderer could be recovered are outweighed by the advantage to the

  639
  taxpayer of placing the risk of cost overrun—not only the cost of the bridge, but operating and maintaining it throughout its life—firmly on the private sector consortium without the risk to the taxpayer. Therefore, we decided that that option provided the best value for money for the taxpayer and the motorist.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister has explained why the contract was allocated on that basis, but he has still not answered my question. We are talking about multi-lane carriageways leading nowhere other than the bridge—they would be cul-de-sacs if they did not go to the bridge. All I am asking is, if the Government say that the bridge should be privately funded, what is the logic of saying that the taxpayer should meet the cost of the feeder roads? It should be all or nothing—an option in between does not make sense.
  Mr. Freeman: I see the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. We are not departing from the present position, where the estuarial crossing on the present bridge is tolled, not the feeder roads. The right hon. Gentleman raises the prospect of changing the basis of financing so that tolls are imposed on feeder roads. There is no reason in principle why that option should not apply, but the Government have decided that in this instance it is better for them to fund the road construction part of the project and permit the construction, operational and maintenance costs of the bridge to be recovered from tolls, as at present.
  At each stage of the development of these proposals there has been extensive local consultation on all aspects of the proposed new roads, including their effect on the environment. In particular, three series of local exhibitions have been held over the past three years, at several venues on both sides of the estuary, to show the developing scheme and to provide all concerned with a full opportunity to comment at each stage.
  As part of this process, a substantial number of alternative routes for the approach roads have been examined and carefully evaluated. The Department's preferred routes have been significantly amended and refined over the period to take account of this work and of the comments that have been received. While recognising that we are never going to be able to satisfy everybody that we have made the best choice of route, I am confident that the final choice—as embodied in the Bill's proposals—represents the best practicable balance between all the conflicting interests at stake.
  In the same vein, I should also stress that we fully recognise the environmental sensitivity of this location. The part of the estuary to be crossed by the new bridge is of considerable ecological interest, particularly as a habitat for wildfowl, and it has been designated as part of a site of special scientific interest. There are also proposals to designate the estuary as both a special protection area for birds, under EC legislation, and as a wetland of international importance for birds under the Ramsar convention. The Department has, therefore, taken great pains to ensure that the effects of the new bridge on the ecology of the estuary will be minimised.
  We hope that the bridge will make a very positive contribution to the landscape of the area. It will be a most impressive structure both in engineering and aesthetic
  640
  terms; on the latter count, the Royal Fine Art Commission has been consulted at a number of stages in the development of the design, and has indicated that it finds the outcome acceptable.
  The concession agreement with Severn River Crossing incorporates exacting requirements set by the Department to meet the environmental concerns and sets out the details of comprehensive proposals to meet those requirements in full.
  Environmental factors of a different kind are equally important on land. Careful account has been taken in the development of the proposals of another site of special scientific interest on the Welsh bank of the estuary, where the flora and fauna are of particular interest. In terms of the effect on people, the aim, in developing the proposals for the connecting motorways, has been to minimise as far as practicable the impact on the local environment and on local communities. That applies both for the period of construction, for which we are proposing wherever possible to keep the inevitable heavy construction traffic away from local centres of population, and for the completed roads themselves, where the aim has been to minimise their visual impact and the severance to local communities. That will be achieved by careful choice of the line and level of the new roads, by the provision of alternatives for local roads and footpaths affected by the scheme, and by extensive landscaping.
  A detailed and comprehensive environmental statement has been prepared in parallel with the Bill to explain all the environmental considerations affecting the scheme and the full extent of the work that has been done to ensure that there is the minimum adverse impact. Copies are in the House Library. Although the EC directive on environmental assessment does not apply to schemes authorised by Parliament, the environmental statement meets the requirements of the directive.
  The House will, I hope, find it helpful if I now turn to the Bill and give an explanation of its structure and contents.
  The Bill falls into three main parts. Of these, part I would provide the necessary powers for the construction of the new bridge and the connecting roads, and other associated works. Part II deals with the arrangements for the operation and management both of the new bridge, following its completion, and the existing bridge. It includes provision for a new tolling regime for the two bridges. Part III covers a range of miscellaneous items not dealt with by the first two parts.
  Part I comprises clauses 1 to 3, which each correspond with a schedule of the same number setting out the associated detailed provisions for each element of the scheme. In essence, these provisions would enable the construction of each element of the works, within specified limits; they would empower the acquisition of the necessary land; and they would permit the alterations to the existing highway network required as a consequence of the main works.
  Part II, which deals with the operation of both bridges, contains the key provisions enabling the Secretary of State to enter into a concession agreement with a private promoter for the design, building, financing and operation of the new bridge, and for taking over the financing and operation of the existing one. As I have said, a concession agreement has already been entered into, with the Severn River Crossing company. That agreement is, of course,

  641
  conditional upon the successful passage of the Bill, and would not have full effect until and unless the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  Much of part II—clauses 5 to 14—is taken up with the provisions needed to implement a new tolling regime for the bridges. That would take effect, initially only at the existing Severn bridge, on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State after Royal Assent. The intention is that it would be the starting date for the concession period, on which the concessionaire would simultaneously take over responsibility for the finances and operation of the existing bridge and be able to begin construction of the new bridge.
  In part because of the possibility—we hope very remote —that the concession agreement will not be able to take effect on that date, the Bill is structured to provide that the basic power to levy tolls is granted to the Secretary of State, rather than directly to the concessionaire. That power may then in turn be conferred on and exercised by the concessionaire, under appropriate conditions.
  The tolls to be levied under the Bill would be set on the same principles, whether it is the Secretary of State or the concessionaire who is levying them. The tolls, which in the normal run of events would be charged only on traffic heading in the westbound direction—that would reduce both operating costs and the disruption to traffic—would be fixed on the basis of the figures in the table in clause 9, indexed in line with the retail prices index.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister will be aware that this country entered the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system a few months ago, since when certain Ministers have been trying to persuade employers and employees to forget all about the retail prices index when they negotiate wages. Would not it be helpful if the Government also forgot all about the RPI and found some more composite, more ERM and EMS-related index? It will be difficult for employees on the construction project if they are exhorted to forget about the RPI when negotiating wage increases when they can see that it has been included in the basis for the annual increase in tolls. Can anything be done to resolve that problem?
  Mr. Freeman: The provision in the Bill protects the public because it sets a cap on the yearly increase in tolls, and the RPI is a fairly general and satisfactory measure of the pressures faced by the general motoring public. Furthermore, its inclusion does not weight the rise in the operating costs of the bridge. Any wage increases conceded by the concessionaire would constitute only a very small proportion of the total RPI for the country, so a satisfactory balance has been struck. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be called in the debate, but I am sure that he will have a subsequent opportunity to suggest an alternative measure of protection. We believe it to be in the interests of the constituents of all hon. Members that there should be a price cap on the rate of increase of tolls—because the crossing is essentially a monopoly.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Why does not the Minister implement on the present Severn crossing the useful and sensible saving that could be derived from collecting tolls only one way? Many hon. Members suggested that at many inquiries and I suggested it again a few months ago in a parliamentary question.
  Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is intended for both bridges. Changing the present tolling regime would require the approval of the House, so there is nothing that we can do until Parliament has approved the change. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, when approval is given in six, 12 or 18 months' time—once Royal Assent has been given to this measure—there should be only westward tolling on the present bridge, he has a strong point, which I shall draw to the attention of the concessionaire.
  Mr. Alex Cattle: Are we to take it from what the Minister has just said in general reference to clause 9 that the toll will not rise from £1 to £2·35 as set out in the table for 1992 until there is one-way tolling only? Can he assure the House that the toll will not be raised to £2·35 or anything like it while two-way tolling continues?
  Mr. Freeman: Yes.
  We do not seek to hide the fact that these tolls would represent a significant increase over existing levels. The initial car toll for 1992 would mean a cash increase, depending on the RPI, of the order of 40 to 45 per cent. over present levels for a round trip over the bridge. In real terms, the increase would be about one third over current levels. Larger vehicles would face more substantial increases. But the real point is that the new bridge must be paid for. These tolls represent a very reasonable price to pay for the provision of about £300 million worth of new bridge, which will more than double the capacity of this vital road link, and provide the benefits of shorter journey times and the minimisation of disruption from bad weather.
  The Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965, which the Bill would repeal, provides for tolling for a period of up to 40 years from opening of the present bridge, in other words, until the year 2006. Under the Bill, which provides for tolling to cover not only the cost of the new bridge but the outstanding deficit of some £120 million on the existing bridge, the concessionaire is permitted a maximum of 30 years' tolling.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister enlighten us on the method of increasing toll charges? We know about the procedure that is followed under the 1965 Act, but now it seems that a great deal of power will be vested in the concessionaire. What is the Minister's role in this matter and will hon. Members be able to vote on it? I understand that local authorities will no longer be able to have a public inquiry about objections to the proposals, and certainly not about proposals with regard to the retail prices index. Can the Minister enlighten us?
  Mr. Freeman: I shall try. There is an application for judicial review of the recent increase on the present bridge to a charge of £2 round trip per car. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on that. However, if, after the second bridge is opened, the concessionaire increases the tolls by no more than the retail prices index—and the matter will be monitored by my Department—there is no mechanism for objecting to or controlling such an increase. In due course, the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to study some of the more detailed clauses that provide in certain circumstances for the tolls to be increased by more than the RPI. There may be certain reasons for that, and my recollection is that an affirmative order would need to be placed before the

  643
  House, voted on and approved by both Houses. If the concessionaire simply sticks to RPI increases, the procedure would be automatic, in the same way as hon. Members' salaries are indexed to movements in civil service salary levels and do not come before the House each year.
  Mr. Alan Williams: That was a helpful and clear answer. Will the Minister explain how he arrived at such a proposition and tell us the relevance of the retail prices index to the cost of the bridge? The RPI measures the change in the cost of living of the average family. As has been said, the Government have been lecturing people and saying that the RPI is wrong and that we should look at core inflation, which is substantially lower than RPI rises. However, even core inflation is not relevant to an operation that will consist almost entirely of capital costs, which are interest related. Why on earth has this rabbit of RPI been produced as relevant to the method of increasing the toll?
  Mr. Freeman: I look forward to debating that at some length. I shall try to give as rational an explanation as possible, because I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. Perhaps he thinks that we should substitute for the RPI the actual increases in the concessionaire's costs, but that would trap him into losing the benefit of the protection to the travelling public that is enshrined in the Bill. What happens if the concessionaire's costs for maintenance, operation and even interest rates rise at a rate faster than the RPI? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the travelling public should be subjected to increases that may be much greater than the RPI? If he looks at the construction industry index and combines it with movements in interest rates, he will find that that is what has happened in the past.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I should welcome that as an alternative, because running costs measured by labour costs and so on, to which the Minister referred, will be minuscule compared with the capital costs. If increases are based on operating costs, rather than the RPI, the people who use the bridge will be infinitely better off. Contrary to what the Minister said earlier, £52·2 million of the £52·5 million from toll payers relates to original design faults at the time of bridge construction. In addition to questions about the RPI, who will meet the costs of any design faults? On the present bridge they cost £50 million.
  Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman talks about design faults. I hope that he does not mean faults in terms of safety but faults in terms of cost overrun. The costs of those are met entirely by the concessionaire and not by the taxpayer, as would be the case if the bridge were to be financed in the conventional way. We are getting into the detail of one of the Bill's provisions. The Government believe that the best protection for the travelling public is the use of the RPI index because it can be related most fairly to the likely trend of annual revenue costs falling on the operator who also maintains the bridge. It has nothing to do with the construction costs, because, once the bridge is open, the cost of the bridge is fixed. Any cost overruns are the responsibility of the concessionaire.
  The concessionaire's tolling period is perhaps 20 to 25 years and during that time he will naturally be subject to
  644
  the pressures of inflation. The RPI is the best way to limit increases in toll charges. The 30-year maximum period of tolling would be reduced if the concessionaire were to collect a certain amount of revenue from tolls before then. On current traffic forecasts, tolling by the concessionaire would not be necessary for more than about 21 or 22 years. If the concession were to start in 1992, it could therefore end by 2014—eight years after the end of the tolling period already permitted under the existing legislation. The Bill allows tolling by the Secretary of State for a further limited period within a maximum of 35 years from the commencement of tolling under these provisions—to meet any outstanding liabilities and, if desired, to set up a fund for the further maintenance of the bridges.
  Part II of the Bill also provides the necessary framework for the arrangements under which the concessionaire is to be responsible for carrying out the Secretary of State's functions connected with the maintenance and operation of the bridges. In particular, it provides for the transfer of staff currently employed at the bridge by Avon county council, as the agents of the Department, to the concessionaire. Care has been taken to ensure that the Bill protects the terms and conditions of employment of the transferred staff.
  The Bill also provides the necessary arrangements for the eventual termination of the concession agreement, including the transfer of the concessionaire's employees to the Secretary of State. This will help to ensure continuity of safe operation of the bridges, whatever the circumstances of the termination. Part II also provides a regime for regulating traffic on the bridges to prevent obstruction or damage. These provisions, which are somewhat more extensive than those that apply to normal stretches of motorway, are needed because of the special circumstances of the bridges and the constraints on their operation—for instance, the absence of a hard shoulder on the existing bridge. The provisions are closely modelled on those in the 1965 Act, which they would supersede.
  Lastly, this part of the Bill provides for copies of the accounts both of the concessionaire and of the Secretary of State to be laid before Parliament. This follows the arrangements provided by the 1965 Act, and, more recently, the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988.
  Part III of the Bill contains an assortment of miscellaneous provisions, notably to regulate operations which would interfere with the navigation of the River Severn and to protect the bridge from damage from shipping. It also deals with matters such as rating and planning permission, as well as the usual interpretation and suchlike provisions. I should also mention here the financial provisions, which are covered by clause 37. If the House agrees to give the Bill a Second Reading, we shall afterwards be asking for the House's approval of the associated money and ways and means resolutions.
  The examiners have determined that the Bill is hybrid and so, subject again to the outcome of this debate, it would next be referred to a Select Committee, to consider any petitions which may be made against the Bill. The committal motion before the House would allow three further weeks from today, during which petitions might be deposited. Given that the Bill was published on 28 November and that the proposals have been the subject of extensive public consultation for a much longer period, this is a reasonable period to allow. The committal motion

  645
  also permits the Select Committee to visit the site and to hold hearings. If it does, the Government will do all that they can to facilitate this process.
  I must not presume too much on the outcome of the debate on the Bill. The proposals that it contains represent a further major step forward for our initiative to bring private finance and enterprise into the provision of transport infrastructure. They will enable the earliest practicable provision of the long-awaited second Severn crossing. The removal of this bottleneck in the motorway network will provide a direct boost to communications, and, in turn, to the economy of the area, particularly in south Wales, where the need for this link has long been recognised. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: The Labour party welcomes the proposal for the construction of a new bridge across the river Severn. The first bridge, built almost a quarter of a century ago, even in normal circumstances has insufficient capacity to meet the traffic generated by the economies of the west of England and south Wales. However, we are less than happy with the fact that the new bridge is to be built with private finance which, as a matter of principle, seems to follow the trend towards two-tier road services—one less congested for the motorist willing and able to pay, and another with a poorer infrastructure for those less able to meet the cost or unable to charge their motoring to business use.
  The Minister was fairly long on detail but short on figures for the project. We should have liked to hear about the likely costings for the project and the likely revenue from it. As we understand it, the estimates are based on the net present value of the scheme to the promoter, through a complicated and inexact formula involving toll rates, traffic forecasts and the life of the concession. In the view of the Treasury, the lower the net present value to the promoter, the better the value for the rest of us, but that approach could make the likely toll projections unrealistic, particularly during the early years of operation when the burden of private debt will be the greatest.
  In any event, the Opposition are unhappy about the principle of toll roads. We consider that the Government's approach to this project is both confused and irrational. Along with such bodies as the Freight Transport Association and the AA, the Labour party considers that the need to pay tolls on a few road links is both anomalous and unfair. The Government's decision to charge at this and other crossings has been applied inconsistently, to say the least. Both the proposed and existing Severn bridges provide a great benefit, but that benefit is to the economy as a whole if the road building justifications of the Department of Transport have any basis in fact. The burden of providing such benefits ought to rest with the nation as a whole rather than with the users, as in this case.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out earlier that the taxpayers provide the access roads to the project, but the revenues arising from the construction of the bridge will go to the builder rather than to the nation. We merely channel the traffic in that direction. The revenue is collected elsewhere. In any event, other similar crossings are toll free. For example, the Britannia bridge, the M5 Avonmouth bridge and the new A55 Conwy crossing in north Wales are, or will be, toll free. Why single out this project? What
  646
  guarantees can the Minister offer that the projected tolls are realistic, given that the site chosen for the new crossing is much wider than the original bridge and that the construction will take place in fast-flowing water? What guarantees can the Minister offer that the engineering difficulties inherent in such a project will not increase the risk of cost overrun?
  In an article on the subject on 26 February last year, the Financial Times said:
  "The temptation to choose the lowest cost option could store up other problems if the project ran over budget and required re-financing, as has happened with the privately financed Channel Tunnel."
  It also said that, in the opinion of one of the consortia bidding for the contract, the bridge will need about 40 piers sunk into the river bed, compared with just two piers for the existing bridge. Will the Minister say something about the likely construction costs?
  As I have said, the Labour party feels that the history of tolls on projects such as this has been fairly unhappy. I choose just two examples at this stage, although we shall return to the point later in our deliberations on the Bill. I draw the Minister's attention to the case of the Mersey tunnels where severe financial difficulties have been created for the transport authority concerned, despite increased revenue due to higher traffic flows and toll increases. In the Mersey travel policy plan for 1991, paragraphs 4.1.12 and 4.1.13 on page 17, the transport authority says:
  "As at 31 March 1990 capital debt was some £116 million costing some £15 million to service. Of this a net deficit of £8 million was borne in 1989–90 by the poll tax payers, money that could have been allocated to areas such as education and housing or indeed poll tax reductions if the Government was prepared to write-off debt incurred from the construction of the Tunnels many years ago."
  There is a similar story on the Humber bridge. A recent district auditor's report confirmed that the total toll levy may never be able to meet the full cost of operation and maintenance, interest charges and capital repayments. The report concluded that the situation was
  "a matter of grave concern."
  These two projects, toll operated as they are, illustrate the unhappy history of projects financed in this way. We hope that, during the later stages of the Bill, we shall be able to persuade the Government that other methods of finance are preferable.
  To assist in our deliberations on the Bill, particularly as regards the principle of tolled crossings, we have the second report of the Select Committee on Transport 1985–86, House of Commons 250, parts 1–3. At the time of the inquiry, just 25 miles out of a total of 9,390 miles of motorway and private roads were subject to private tolls. The Committee considered not only that many of the crossing authorities were finding it difficult to manage the debt but that tolls were having an adverse effect on the local economy. The House will be aware that, at that time, the Select Committee advocated the abolition of toll charges on estuarial crossings. Among its reasons for doing that, the Select Committee pointed out that tolls can inhibit the development of commercial activity around such crossings. Another significant argument against the principle involved was the high cost of collection, which varied between 4·5 per cent. of income at Dartford and 25 per cent. of income at the Tay bridge. What estimates does the Minister have of collection costs on this project?
  The Select Committee concluded its report by saying:
  "We firmly believe that tolls should not be imposed on any major estuarial crossing which forms part of the motorway or

  647
  trunk system. We recommend that the Government recognise the inappropriateness of tolling trunk road and motorway crossings and that the Department of Transport, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office work towards the removal of existing tolls."
  We consider that the Select Committee was right then and that those sentiments are right now.
  Will the Minister confirm that the design of the new bridge is French? Have the Government considered the implications for British contractors if that is so? It will not help this country to compete in the international bridge-building market if a foreign design has been chosen. Is this yet another example of the Government's determination to put supposed profit before patriotism?
  Can the Minister confirm that, although the existing bridge over the Severn has a cycle and pedestrian way, the new bridge has no such facility, despite repeated requests from Avon county council? Has the Minister considered the provision of such a facility, or have the proposals been dropped so as to keep construction costs to a minimum and to accentuate the attractiveness of the project to the private sector?
  The Treasury receives about £15 billion per year from Britain's road users. But with such a massive and ever-increasing sum, the Government should surely be able to fund essential projects such as this without hawking them around the private sector and without the built-in delay, expense and inconvenience that toll projects invariably generate. We believe that, the Department of Transport having proved the need, the need ought to will the means.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. John Cope: The Bill is important for people in many parts of the country, and especially for those in my constituency. The existing Severn bridge starts, or finishes, depending on which way one drives across it, in my constituency. The proposed bridge will also start in my constituency. It will be very near to the twin villages of Pilning and Severn Beach. The new approach roads will affect my constituents considerably. They will be affected permanently when those roads are completed and, while they are being constructed, they will be affected considerably by construction traffic and other works nearby. The site that has been chosen makes it inevitable that the approach roads will go near and partially through the two villages that I have mentioned.
  The basic question in this debate is whether the bridge is needed. If it is needed, is it to be built at the right place? As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear in his opening remarks, that has been the subject of exhaustive study and report over many years. I became convinced some time ago that a new crossing is necessary and that a bridge at English Stones is essentially the right solution. I was confirmed in that by chance a few months ago when I flew over that part of the Severn estuary when the tide was out. The reason for building the bridge in that position then became entirely clear. The engineer's decision stood out as the rock stood out on the river bed. The base of the bridge is already there.
  The decisions that have been made on the bridge and on its siting lead to decisions on approach roads. It must be right to connect the new bridge both to the M4 and the M5. Wherever the bridge is sited, however, it will affect
  648
  many people. There have been long discussions between individuals, groups and the various councils on my side of the Severn and, I believe, on the other side over the past few years.
  Several things are clear. First, there is no route that does not affect a lot of people. Secondly, there are different layers of problem. Whichever route is chosen, some property will have to be taken in its entirety and used during the construction of the bridge to be seriously devalued by having a new motorway nearby. Often the motorway will be at quite a high level—for example, where it links with the bridge. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the compensation for the many who will be involved in payments is in the course of being improved by the Planning and Compensation Bill, which is being considered in another place. For example, that measure will double the amount of home loss payments for property that is taken. Compensation payments will be improved in other ways.
  Whatever the level of compensation, there will be some who will be badly affected and whose needs will have to be taken into account. I think that the Department of Transport has done its best to assess all factors and to choose the best route that it can. I am grateful to officials of the Department for the time that they have spent with me and with my constituents and others in discussing various routes and the effects that they will have on individuals, as well as the alternative proposals that have been put forward. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, they have held important exhibitions to ensure that everyone who will be affected has the opportunity clearly to see the proposed routes and to discuss with officials the effects that they will have. Some alterations have been made to the routes during the discussions. There have been some important alterations as well to the various noise-mitigating actions that will be taken during construction.
  Now we have come to the crunch. The Department of Transport has settled on the route that it thinks is the best. The choice was whether to try to obtain authority for both the bridge and the roads by means of a Bill such as the one before us or to try to secure authority for the roads at least by following the conventional public inquiry route. I think that the right choice has been made. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there must be a Bill for the bridge, and it is best to have both the roads and the bridge gain authority in the same way and at the same time. The siting of the one will affect intimately the other.
  The result for those whose property will be affected —I put this in slightly crude terms—is that they will be able to give evidence to a committee of Members who will report to the House as a whole, rather than give evidence to an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State and who would report to him. I hope that those who give evidence will find that a committee of Members will be just as responsive as any inspector to their submissions. I hope that in some ways they will be even more understanding of their concerns.
  My hon. Friend the Minister was right to say that it is necessary for those who wish to give evidence to ensure that they make application in the form of a petition during the next three weeks, if the motion to commit to a Select Committee is carried, as one hopes and expects it will be, at the end of the debate.
  To choose such a Bill for introducing the proposals means that the method itself is on trial. It puts great

  649
  responsibility on the members of the Select Committee. Those Members will have to make decisions that will affect directly the future of some individuals. Unlike councillors, we Members do not usually have the specific responsibility that will be placed on our colleagues who are nominated to be members of the Select Committee. Our colleagues who are chosen to serve in that way must consider carefully the costs and the benefits of the bridge—that will involve its entire construction—and the disbenefits to individuals. The benefits to motorists and commerce and industry can be estimated in various ways. The disbenefits to individuals can be measured by the loss of property values, for example. Indeed, that will have to be measured in assessing the compensation that is payable at various stages during the progress of the works.
  There is some controversy about the methods of measuring the costs and the benefit of bridges and comparing the two. That is reflected in today's edition of The Times. I hope that our colleagues who are nominated to be members of the Select Committee will weigh these matters carefully. They have the opportunity to start with a clean sheet and to probe. They will be able to question the calculations that lie behind the design. I am sure that they should take the opportunity to hear the views of those who are affected and are on or near the site where the bridge is to be.
  I hope that the Committee will come to the west and to Wales, so that its members can examine the proposals in the areas that will be affected and hear the evidence of those who will be affected by the roads. With a great project of this sort it is inevitable that some people's individual interests will be affected. That is the reason for the private Bill and hybrid Bill procedure that we follow. It is for those who are members of the Select Committee to ensure that things are done properly. That is important in the interests of those concerned and for the reputation of the House when we come to make decisions of this sort.
  Apart from routing, important considerations are landscaping, noise abatement and the diverting of existing roads when there is a need for a different route to be adopted to allow them to continue to be used. Modern methods of noise abatement should be used wherever possible to ensure that the inconvenience caused by new motorways to people living in the area is minimised.
  My final points relate to the nature of the Severn itself. Much of the land that is several miles from the river bank is below sea level—at least at high tide—and that makes drainage a matter of the first importance. The building of major roads in that area could seriously affect the drainage there, which is sometimes extremely tricky. The drains in the Severn valley carry a great deal of water and the effect of making changes to them are not always understood at the time. Alterations made at one location can cause flooding some miles away, creating great difficulties for the residents concerned. A proper study should be undertaken to ensure that proper drainage is provided.
  The Severn is a powerful river, having strong currents. It has the second highest tidal range—between high and low tide—of any river in the world. A difference of plus or minus 10 m during each tide is not abnormal, and with some tides the difference is even greater. The Severn is also an important waterway, and those two facts together mean that the design of the bridge and of the piers—the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) pointed out that the bridge is to have many piers—will affect the
  650
  currents and the way in which many tonnes of silt will be deposited along the river, above and below the bridge, which will also affect many people living in the locality.
  The effects will be difficult to calculate in advance, even by modelling, but the maximum effort should be made to ensure that they are assessed and taken into account in the construction of the bridge. Such calculations have not always been made accurately in respect of past constructions on the Severn, giving rise to flooding and to other consequences that we want to avoid this time. The Committee will need to be alert to all those considerations if it is fully to appreciate the problems arising from the construction of the new bridge and their effect on the local people.
  However, the House should acknowledge today that the new bridge is necessary and that the right choice of location has been made. Nevertheless, the new crossing will create many difficulties for those living in the parishes concerned and the Committee must examine whether the damage can be mitigated further. It is in the confidence that the, as yet unnamed, members of the Committee will do their best to ensure that is done that I support the Bill.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Today marks an important landmark, for the Bill is the culmination of many years of campaigning. I pay tribute to Gwent county council and to others in south Wales for the wonderful campaign that they waged, to my hon. Friends, and to late colleagues—such as Mr. Brynmor John and Mr. loan Evans, who played such a valuable part in bringing the project to the fore. The South Wales Argus, South Wales Echo and Western Mail have all been very supportive.
  The issue of the new Severn crossing has certainly occupied much of my own time in recent years. We have come a long way since November 1983, when a group of Welsh Labour Members of Parliament lobbied the then Secretary of State for Transport for a second crossing, after the state of the existing bridge had been exposed. The Secretary of State in question was that figure of enlightenment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who told us in his usual inimitable way that he did not intend to dig another hole in the ground.
  Although today is a landmark, our achievement is muted because of the deplorable way in which the matter has been handled by the Government. By handing over to a foreign-backed consortium the main route of access into and out of Wales, the Government have abdicated their responsibilities in respect of a cornerstone of the Welsh infrastructure. Their decision is shameful and an insult to Wales.
  The Government have also been indifferent on the major issue of toll charges. It is intrinsic to the no-risk concessionary agreement that there will be ever-escalating increases in toll charges in the years ahead. That agreement will allow increased tolls to be levied on the existing bridge from 1992 onwards—three years before the second crossing is scheduled to be completed. That is wholly unacceptable. The proposed toll regime should not apply until the new facility is available.
  At the last tolls inquiry, it was said that the proposed increases would enable debts on the existing bridge to be paid off by 2006, which is in line with the 40-year toll

  651
  period enshrined in the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965. The Bill, however, provides for an enhanced level of tolls until 2025—a 60-year period.
  Incidentally, I recall that Aneurin Bevan once posed the question, "Why not trust the Tories?" On the issue of toll charges alone, it is obvious that the Tories cannot be trusted. It is no wonder that they were reluctant to publish the concessionary agreement. We ask that the notional debt of approximately £122 million on the existing bridge be wiped out before the commencement of the new concession. In that way, tolls could be kept at a reasonable level.
  The Bill makes no provision for local authorities and other interested parties to call a public inquiry. I raised that point when the Minister made his opening remarks. The denial of that right is a negation of democracy, and that omission should be rectified at the earliest opportunity.
  I also think of those constituents of mine who, when they were made redundant some years ago, were advised by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to get on their bikes. They did, and found work on the other side of the Bristol channel. Now they are heavily penalised by heavy toll charges for doing so. Such charges are a restraint on trade and commerce, and constantly add to the cost of goods and services.
  There is no consistency in Government policy. The Government claim that charges should be levied at crossings which provide exceptional benefits. In his opening remarks from the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked whether the M5 Avonmouth bridge did not provide exceptional benefit, likewise the Britannia bridge in north Wales and the Scottish crossings of the A9 at Moray, Dornoch and Cromarty Firths, and the A82 Ballachulish bridge. The east London river crossing will also be toll free, as will the A55 Conwy crossing in north Wales—I believe that that may be related to the fact that Conwy is becoming more of a marginal seat for the Conservative party.
  As the Freight Transport Association points out, to perpetuate tolls on the existing and new Severn bridges will compound the inconsistency and irrationality of Government policy.
  Why does the Confederation of British Industry for Wales not realise the significance of this issue? We have not heard a dicky bird from that body, whose loyalty to the Government seems to take precedence over the interests of its members, let alone the general public. Indeed, the CBI must blush when taking contributions from its members in view of the role that it has played in the tolls issue. I am sorry that the leadership of my party did not grasp the nettle in the run-up to the last general election. A report by the Select Committee on Transport clearly set out how it would be done. Apart from minor local authority involvement, the debts from estuarial crossings are essentially notional figures on the Consolidated Fund, with no bank charges involved. The amounts involved are a flea bite compared with the outstanding debts that the Government have wiped out to pursue their privatisation policy.
  Road transport is not a poor relation. It makes a massive contribution to the Exchequer—more than £18
  652
  billion annually, of which less than a quarter is spent on roads and their maintenance. Despite that, the Government are prepared to squeeze the last penny from this vital sector of the economy. I am worried that in the process they are damaging Wales, which has struggled for new jobs and a little prosperity after so many economic setbacks.
  The second Severn crossing is part of a strategic road network. As the poet John Donne said,
  "No man is an Island".
  That is true in relation to the second Severn crossing, which is one section of a jigsaw made up of interlocking parts. In connection with that, I must express my concern about the delays in a number of important Welsh road improvement schemes. In the context of the second Severn crossing, I am especially worried about the delay over the Brynglas Crindau tunnel scheme on the M4 as it is a major bottleneck, which needs to be tackled. Otherwise, Newport will be choked with traffic congestion. There have been suggestions that that scheme would be delayed, but the Welsh Office seems to have had second thoughts after protests. Mr. Christopher Tapp, chief executive of Newport borough council, points out in a letter to me dated 11 January that the Welsh Office is now planning a start in 1992, and not in 1991, but that would still result in one year's delay. The Minister of State at the Welsh Office seems to have confirmed that in a letter to me today.
  In relation to the problems associated with the construction of the second Severn crossing, I think of the people at the sharp end—my constituents in Caldicot, Magor, Rogiet and Undy. I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of the concept of a second Severn crossing, but I have never wished to underestimate the environmental and other difficulties involved. I thank the Government for taking heed of my advice, and for establishing consultative machinery. A committee has been formed, consisting of representatives of local interests on the Welsh side—community councils, Monmouth borough council, Gwent county council—together with Welsh Office representatives. Grievances can be aired and the general public can be kept informed of developments before they are under way.
  One major grievance was voiced by the people of Magor and Undy, who formed an action committee with a view to stopping heavy lorries from passing through their villages on the way to the Severn crossing site. Meetings were held and they drew up a large petition, which I handed in at the Welsh Office in Cardiff, accompanied by members of the action committee and local authority representatives. I am pleased to say that the Welsh Office understood the difficulties and the building of an access road for construction traffic was brought forward by a year, with the result that lorries will leave the M4 to the east of junction 23 at Magor.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying that compliment to the Welsh Office. However, a few moments ago he referred to the Brynglas tunnels and the Malpas relief road and he implied that work on that scheme would not start until 1992. I actually said that we shall go out to tender in the spring of this year, which would imply a start of work in this calendar year.
  Mr. Hughes: I am glad of that confirmation of good news from the Minister as there was great concern in

  653
  Newport and the surrounding areas about that scheme. However, the chief executive in Newport is certainly of the impression that it would mean a 1992 start.
  I have mentioned difficulties which have been alleviated for the people of Magor and Undy. Now Caldicot, led by the mayor, Mrs. Pauline Watts, is requesting that the access road which I referred to earlier be extended to bypass the Pill area of Caldicot. From my local knowledge, I know that that new proposal has a good deal of logic, and I ask the Welsh Office to consider it carefully.
  Last Saturday morning I met a delegation from Rogiet community council, which suggested that the direction in which tolls will be collected on the new crossing should be changed from westbound to eastbound. The suggestion was made because of continuing concern in the village about the levels of noise and air pollution emanating from westbound vehicles leaving the toll plaza and accelerating away on a rising 1 in 62 incline. Given the prevailing south-west wind, the village of Rogiet would be in the direct line of exhaust and other noxious fumes. That strikes me as an entirely legitimate point.
  The Automobile Association says:
  "The new bridge will have a dual three-lane standard. However, the approach road serving the new bridge on the English side of the River Severn is to be constructed as a dual two-lane carriageway, with provision for a third lane in the future 'when the need arises'. This represents … a planned bottleneck."
  At least the AA knows something about roads; I hope that its views will be taken into consideration.
  The Government should seriously consider the important environmental and other problems associated with the construction of the bridge. Although I welcome the concept of a second Severn crossing, I cannot give the Bill three cheers. First, the Government have handed over an important section of our infrastructure to a foreign-backed consortium, which in turn seems to have milked a no-risk agreement out of the Government. Secondly, no concession has been made on toll charges; on the contrary, they will be increased markedly and paid over a longer period. The debt on the existing bridge should have been wiped out, and no further toll increase should be imposed on that bridge until the new one is completed.
  I hope that the Government will reconsider, even at this late stage. Meanwhile, the most that I can give the Bill is one cheer—it deserves no more.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Almost every time one approaches the Severn bridge one appreciates the need for a second crossing on that great and turbulent river. Indeed, whenever one crosses the bridge itself, one somehow feels—as one looks at the repairs and the lane closures, and considers the history of the bridge—that one is wearing the torn and tattered trousers of Wales. Wales —with an economy which is always ready to thrive, and is extremely attractive to industry not only in England but in the rest of the world—deserves better than it has received from a congested, poorly designed and poorly repaired bridge in recent decades.
  I welcome the decision to build a second Severn crossing. I urge the Department, however, to ensure that the new crossing is adequate—not only adequate for 1995–96, when it is likely to open, but of suitable size, quality and design for the 21st century. The Bill makes positive statements about the state of affairs at the crossing
  654
  30 and 40 years from now: the concession is for 30 years and provision is made for the collection of tolls by the Secretary of State for a further five years thereafter. We must be sure—and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us in due course—that the design that has been sought and provided will meet the needs of the year 2025 as they are envisaged now. We need to know that we shall not be faced in 15 or 20 years' time with the inadequacies and complaints that the existing bridge has brought repeatedly to the House of Commons.
  May I ask the Minister to tell us whether the decision to provide a second crossing has been viewed as part of an overall transport and freight strategy or as merely a part of the patchwork of roads to be designed to meet the current obvious shortfall? Are we to expect the new bridge merely to bring more and more freight on to the roads, at the expense of rail transport? Has the Department considered, for example, the desirability of improving rail links at the same time? Has it considered how rail transport can be enhanced—particularly the carriage of freight—to keep cars off the roads of south Wales, rather than their being driven in increasing numbers on to those roads?
  I am sure that the Minister knows that, once we move north of the M4 in south Wales and up towards mid-Wales, the roads quickly run out and we soon find ourselves on what are—at least by comparison with the M4—not much more than country lanes. I am pleased to see that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is present. Will part of the overall strategy be the introduction, at long last, of roads that improve the Welsh transport infrastructure, especially through the provision of a proper link from north and mid-Wales to south Wales? Now that a new Severn crossing is being provided and the A55 is nearing completion as a major expressway, surely it is logical to provide such a link between north and mid-Wales to, in particular, the south-east of England. That will enable Wales to thrive rather more easily than it can now, given the present constraints.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that a bypass is shortly to be opened on the A470 at Llanidloes in his constituency. That is part of the 100 million investment in the A470 that we have made since 1979; some £70 million is still to be invested in the north-south route.
  Mr. Carlile: I am all too well aware of the imminent opening of that bypass, which is currently under construction—not least because of the unhappiness of a number of my constituents about the way in which the construction contract has been carried out, which has often been to the considerable detriment of local residents. The bypass is very welcome; I am sure that the Minister of State will agree, however, that it is quite a long way from the M4, particularly on the existing Welsh roads.
  I suggest to the Minister of State that, on current plans, the improvements that he now envisages will do well to knock more than five or 10 minutes off the journey time from Llanidloes to, say, Cardiff or Newport and that much more needs to be done.
  Perhaps, tempted by the Minister of State, we are straying a little wide of the subject of the debate. Let me put to the Minister a further point, which has already been made this evening: although I accept the clear terms in which his assurance was given, we must be certain that the construction of the bridge will not inhibit either existing

  655
  shipping—on which he gave an assurance—or the possibility of the development of shipping facilities at some of the ports on the river. Large ships use the river. As we are considering road development for the next 30 years, we should also consider shipping development over the next 30 years. We should not view the development of merchant shipping with a pessimistic eye, as we tend to at present.
  Mr. Freeman: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, in terms of the prospective increase in trade and size of ships, the Department of Transport will certainly take into account the representations made by the appropriate trade, conservation and waterways protection bodies so that the design and operation of the bridge and the location of its piers will facilitate both existing trade and, where sensible, increases in the size of ships.
  Mr. Carlile: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, not least for the usual clarity of his intervention. To illustrate what I have in mind, there is considerable potential for the development of trade between the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the Community, following the changes that are to take place in 1992. Much of that trade may wish to use Severn river ports as staging posts.
  Conditional agreement has been reached about the concession. Considerable concern has been expressed in Wales about the belief that French interests are the most likely to benefit from the contract and the tolls that will be collected during the next 30 years. As a keen pro-European, I do not wish to be insular, but it would help if we could be reassured that every attempt has been made to ensure that domestic interests will benefit from the concession.
  A more worrying point is that the Bill refers to the concession being granted for a period of 30 years. If we look at the history of public liability companies during the last 30 years, we see that that is an extremely long time in the life of any company. Large companies that are household names at one moment cease to exist soon thereafter. What steps is the Department of Transport taking to try to ensure—it may be impossible to secure an absolute assurance—that 12 or 15 years' hence we do not find that the Department has been left with an extremely expensive white elephant on its hands because of the financial failure of the concessionaires or because of successive takeovers of the concessionaires? Can we be reassured that those who become the majority shareholders will be unable in a few years' time to take advantage of company law provisions in order to avoid their obligations under the concession?
  The Government seem to be convinced that the right approach is to construct a toll bridge, and the collection of tolls between south Wales and England is correct in principle. Much has already been said about that, but it seems to me that that approach places the Welsh economy at a disadvantage compared, say, with Avon's economy. Can the Government assure us that toll levels will remain fair? The table set out in the Bill is helpful, but it will be possible for the concessionaires to come to the House to seek an increase in tolls above the retail prices index. The concessionaires may be able to produce figures that show that they have bought a pup and that they are not making the profits that they expected to make out of the
  656
  concession. Will the Government at least assure us that they will hold the concessionaires to the principles that underlie the concession and that it will be bad luck for the concessionaires if they find in a few years' time that during the tendering procedure they miscalculated? It is important that that principle should be established. I am grateful that the Minister for Public Transport is nodding in assent.
  A powerful plea has just been made on behalf of those villages that will be affected during the concession period. It may be that their position could best be protected if construction of the slip roads took place at the earliest possible stage so that they could be used for the carriage of goods and materials for the construction of the bridge. I hope that the Department will do all that it can to reduce disturbance to a minimum.
  The bridge is expected to be completed by the end of 1995. That date may be of great importance to companies that are considering establishing important new factories or office premises in south Wales. In order to ensure the maximum possible confidence for companies that are thinking about coming to south Wales, will the Government ensure that time is of the essence of the contract for that part of the concession that involves the construction of the bridge? The effect of making time of the essence of the contract would ensure that the highest possible incentive was given to the concessionaires to complete the contract on time, particularly if heavy penalties were imposed if the bridge was not completed on time.
  I welcome the decision to construct a second river crossing. Despite the misgivings I have expressed, I hope that it will have a fair wind.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), I came here to give three cheers for the new bridge. However, having listened to the Minister's speech—I apologise to my hon. Friend, since I do not mean this in any personal sense—I do not believe that we should give a single cheer for it. The Bill is a rip off by those who will build the bridge and by the Government.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), who is sitting in the Whips' position, that my late decision to take part in the debate is in no way to be taken as a wish by me to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill. I am sure that those hon. Members who are selected to serve on the Committee will be delighted by my absence, since my presence could only prolong its deliberations.
  The right hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East highlighted the importance of consulting those who will be immediately affected once the construction of the bridge is in hand. That is correct. However, in his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to a point that brought back to mind a controversy that arose at the time of the construction of the first Severn bridge. He referred to the rocks upon which the piers and piles are to be laid. I well recollect our late friend, Iori Thomas, the Member of Parliament for Rhondda, waxing eloquently and angrily about the fact that the Beaufort estate derives great benefit from the piers and the piles. Apparently, the Beaufort estate owns the bed of the river Severn. The more the piers

  657
  and piles, the more the benefit to the Beaufort estate. A rent has to be paid to the Beaufort estate for every pier and pile that is laid on the bed of the river. I should be intrigued, although not particularly worried, to discover whether that is still so. If it is, the more piers there are, the merrier the Beauforts will be.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made an important point about the shadow effect of the bridge. I was lecturing as an economist when the bridge was first announced and I remember warning on Welsh radio and television that its greatest benefit would be to the south-east of Wales and that unless a proper transport system and incentives were provided to encourage industry to go beyond the more immediate locations it could present problems for west and mid-Wales. Although the second bridge will have a lesser effect, it will have a similar effect and will increase relatively the attractiveness of the coastal strip to the south-east of Wales.
  I hope that the Department of Transport has undertaken full appraisal of all the designs. By failing to observe its normal procedures and by changing the design of the present bridge at the last moment, it caused remedial costs of £52·2 million, all of which are related to design fault. The recent increase in tolls to £1 would not have been necessary had it not been for those design faults, and that increase will raise less money than the design faults cost. The monitoring of the design is crucial.
  I said that the Bill is a rip off. I had no preconceived ideas because I had not read the Bill until about half an hour before entering the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) took up the Minister's point about approach roads, which will be paid for from public funds. This will not be a minor cost to the public. We are told that the bridge will cost £300 million, but, unless I misheard, the approach roads, which we will pay for, will cost £200 million. The Minister nods. Taxpayers are providing a £200 million subsidy to those who will construct the bridge. The roads that we are building have no purpose other than to lead to the bridge. The constructors are therefore getting a massive capital subsidy from the outset.
  Mr. Freeman: Since my opening speech, support for the Bill seems to have decreased rather than increased. I obviously failed to explain that there was a competition whereby each proposed contractor expressed, in terms of revenue at 1989 prices, the minimum revenue that it would accept, bearing in mind all the risks of construction of the bridge and its maintenance, operation and interest costs. We chose Laing because £976 million, as shown in the concession agreement, was the best possible estimate of revenue at 1989 prices. The risk lies entirely with that consortium. The higher the cost, the smaller the profit. The increase in tolls will be set by indexing them with a maximum increase in the RPI each year. The tolls earned by the consortium will be taken back to 1989 prices and added up each year. Once the figure of £976 million is reached, the toll ends and the bridge reverts to the Secretary of State. That is not a rip off. We compared the financial consequences of the consortium, with £976 million at 1989 prices as the maximum revenue to be earned, with designing and building a conventional bridge in the public sector and concluded, in a complicated calculation, that the award of the tender to Laing presented the best value for money for the taxpayer.
  Mr. Williams: I shall consider the Minister's remarks, which were detailed. However, it was useful and helpful information. It might have been helpful if we had had an opportunity to absorb it earlier. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) interrupts. We are trying to have a positive and sensible discussion.
  The Bill is a rip off of the taxpayer and the motorist. For example, the Government will make windfall profits from the bridge. As the Minister said, the yield from tolls is already £15 million higher than necessary because of an error by the Department in the first instance, but those tolls will be raised higher than the Government thought necessary simply to match the toll on the new bridge. That represents a windfall. The way in which the Minister anticipates dealing with the increases in toll charges is unjustifiable and has no basis in logic. Tolls will increase according to the cost of living index, without any challenge whatsoever; only if they increase above that rate will there be a challenge.
  The bridge will cost £300 million. The highest cost will be servicing not the structure but the capital. What relationship has the RPI to that, because that cost is pre-determined? The rate of interest is arranged and is unaffected by changes in cost. If anything, it is possible that the constructors will benefit from a reduction in interest rates. If they organise their finances correctly, their major costs of servicing capital can decrease while charges to the public increase according to the retail prices index. That measures the changes in the costs of the average household, which are unrelated to the cost of operating a bridge.
  Not only is there a windfall profit to the Government from the toll arrangements and increases but a massive further windfall to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East alluded. Under the present arrangements, the Government believed that the motorist's debt to the Government would be expunged by 2006, but under the Bill the Minister has the power to continue tolls, at the RPI increased rate, for 35 years. In other words, tolls on the present bridge will continue not until 2025 but until 2030. Is that a correct assessment? The Minister seems uncertain, so I shall err on his side and take the lower figure. Assuming that the date is 2025, inflated tolls will continue for 19 years after the date when the public will have paid its debt to the Department of Transport. We shall pay a £200 million capital subsidy to those who build the bridge and an inflated toll, linked to the RPI, to those who operate it. The Government will sit back, smiling all over their face, drawing in the benefits of not only inflated tolls until 2006 but of income that they did not expect to have, at an inflated rate, from then on. In other words, it will produce a surplus of about £100 million beyond the date until which motorists expect to pay tolls on the existing Severn bridge.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: But does not the right hon. Gentleman forget one crucial fact: we shall have an additional bridge?
  Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the Minister. With respect, he usually talks about market forces, but there is no question of market forces here. We shall have to pay higher prices on the bridge for which we have already paid. There is no question of market prices for bridge 1 and bridge 2. The idea that we are getting a bargain is nonsense. Does the Minister seriously suggest that a £200

  659
  million subsidy, higher tolls than necessary on the new bridge and a windfall of tolls to the Government for almost 20 years beyond the date after which the charges for the present Bill have been met, is anything but a rip off? Can he suggest that that is a good deal for the public? If he can, I suggest that later he will regret his words.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a devastating criticism of the funding of the bridge. We all look forward to that argument being explored in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) also made criticisms. It is fair to say that the only thing that unites us is support for the principle of a second crossing. There can be no doubt about the benefits of a second crossing. We welcome a crossing principally because communications both into and out of Wales are unacceptable and conditions on the existing bridge are intolerable for both the people who use it and the economic development in Wales. Economic development particularly worries me and it will be the thrust of my arguments this evening.
  I am worried about the consequence for regional development of Wales not only under existing circumstances but in those which will prevail after 1 January 1993 when we have to compete in the European single market and possibly face the prospect of a single currency. Unless we have good communications and a proper regional policy, we in Wales will not stand a chance of competing with the dynamic areas of the Low Countries, northern France and Germany.
  There is no doubt that there is a need for the crossing. I use in evidence the undoubted benefits that have accrued from the M4. Ever since the Severn bridge was opened and the development along the M4 corridor took place we have seen a measure of industrial development and economic regeneration in south Wales which has gone some way to offsetting the losses that we incurred as a result of the contraction of the coal and steel industries. The most recent developments were the Ford development at Bridgend and the Bosch development in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). Last Friday there was an exciting announcement by Imperial college that it would set up a new science and research park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). All those exciting developments have come to Wales as a result of improved communications via the M4.
  If we are to ensure that the whole region benefits, we must pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East when he referred to a jigsaw and the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West about the need to ensure that there is a proper network of communications. If we do not respond to that need, there will be a corridor of economic activity and prosperity along the M4 but no social, community and economic development in the valleys that do not have good access to the M4. The prospects for such areas will be grim.
  Shortly before Christmas my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and I were bitterly upset by
  660
  the announcement by the Welsh Office of the road programme for the coming year. The road programme is important because it will provide the link which will ensure that we benefit from the new Severn crossing. My constituency is particularly badly served by roads. We have one principal road—the A469. As the Minister will be aware, it is a narrow, winding road which is invariably subject to unacceptable delays. It brings environmental disadvantages to the people who live along it. It chokes any prospect of economic development in the valley.
  To tackle the problems that I have outlined, Mid Glamorgan county council has an ambitious programme of road improvements. It wants to open up the valley and improve the communications. It wants to link the valleys to the M4 and the Severn crossing so that we can benefit from economic growth. The first stage of the programme was the Llanbradach bypass, which was the subject of a submission to the Welsh Office last year. As part of its transport grant submission, the council asked for approval of expenditure of £10·6 million for that one small bypass. The Welsh Office offered approval of only £1·5 million. The importance of the bypass has two aspects. First, unless it is built, the environment in Llanbradach and Ystrad Mynach in the centre of the valley will continue to make people's existence miserable. Secondly, without the bypass, any future developments further up the valley will be stymied. There is no point in building a bypass in the lower part of the valley if there is a bottleneck in the middle, with the traffic whipping round Llanbradach and Ystrad Manach and being caught in Bargoed or wherever.
  Exactly the same problem has afflicted the neighbouring constituencies. Funding for the Pontypridd bypass is in jeopardy, as is the link to the A470. The Minister rapidly rose to justify the A470 development, but the link included Merthyr which was also subject to a cash cut-off by the Welsh Office. Again, in my constituency the Bargoed bypass application has failed. All such developments are singularly important to the valley constituencies because they link us to the M4 corridor of prosperity. Mid Glamorgan county council recognised that, because in its preface to the transport policy and programmes submission to the Welsh Office it said:
  "The major schemes planned by the County Council besides contributing to Structure Plan policies are seen as complementary to the Secretary of State's Valleys Programme in that they will encourage new economic activity to locate within the heart of the valleys by virtue of the better communications so created. In addition they will free the congested urban commercial areas of problems associated with congestion and poor environment and will enable the process of urban renewal to gather momentum by breathing life back into some of the County's town centres and by encouraging private investment."
  We all agree with that. The Llanbradach bypass scheme meets all the criteria set down by the Welsh Office. The scheme was not approved by the Welsh Office and Mid Glamorgan was singularly badly hit.
  In the programme approved for 1991–92, Mid Glamorgan was allocated 14·9 per cent. of the available funds; it has 18·7 per cent. of the Welsh population. South Glamorgan has 14 per cent. of the Welsh population; it was allocated 37·7 per cent. of available funds. West Glamorgan, with 12·6 per cent. of the Welsh population, was allocated 16·7 per cent. of the funds. Our community in Mid Glamorgan is disadvantaged. We saw the same pattern in the past. In the past three years, Mid Glamorgan was allocated on average 15 per cent. of the

  661
  total. The average allocated to South Glamorgan was 25 per cent. of the total funds available and the average allocation to West Glamorgan was 31·3 per cent.
  In the next two years the average funds that will be made available to Mid Glamorgan will be 17·8 per cent. but to South Glamorgan it will be a massive 46 per cent. I use those figures to show that we in Mid Glamorgan have been done a great disservice by the Welsh Office. Two decisions have particularly disadvantaged us. The first is the decision that the expenditure of £250 million on the Conwy tunnel in the Minister's constituency should be top-sliced off all the expenditure available to Wales. As a result, the lion's share of Welsh money is going to the Minister's constituency. There is a much reduced pool to share out between the other counties of Wales. Secondly, even from that limited pool, South Glamorgan receives the lion's share because of the Government's commitment. I make no criticism of the Butetown link road; I have no reservations about the expenditure on that. The lion's share of the remaining pool has gone to the Butetown link road and we know why the Government are pouring funds into that development.
  If the Minister wants to have public support for his road programme and the concept of a new crossing, and if he wants balanced, stable communities in the valleys of Wales, he must listen when the people of the valleys say, "We must have adequate communications". He must ensure that we are linked to the M4. It is only if he provides that sort of investment that we can benefit from the prospect of a second Severn crossing.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: This has been a singularly well informed debate. I hope that the Minister of State, Welsh Office and the Minister for Public Transport can return to the Welsh Office and the Department of Transport, respectively, with many important and useful ideas from this debate.
  I remember, as will all Welsh Members, the opening of the Severn bridge and the hope that it brought to the people of Wales that Wales and England would come closer. In many respects, that dream has become a nightmare. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) who, over many years, has led and championed a campaign to improve the conditions on the bridge.
  Only last week, many hundreds of motorists and I had to face a 73-mile detour round Gloucestershire into south Wales because the bridge was yet again closed to all traffic. My hon. Friends have highlighted those delays. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred to the regular delays on the bridge caused by bad weather, high winds and accidents. Just one accident can mean miles of delays and hold-ups.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) rightly said that the present bridge was badly designed in the first place. We have been paying for that financially, economically and socially. I understand from the Minister that the present repairs to the bridge are due to be finished by August 1991. I hope that that will be the case. The imposition of the 40 mph speed limit and the introduction of the narrow lanes which have been there since 1985 have led to a 40 per cent. increase in traffic, the number of accidents annually varying between 65 and 31.
  662
  The fact that the bridge is actually damaging the Welsh economy means that we welcome a second crossing into the Principality.
  The present bridge carries 6,600 million tonnes of goods into Wales, and more than 800 million tonnes out of Wales. The crossing is vital to Wales because it brings much-needed inward investment. Europeans, Japanese and others see the bridge as a way into south Wales to develop our region. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly rightly said that the much-vaunted valleys initiative, which the Secretary of State for Wales launched some years ago, relies heavily on a proper transport and highways infrastucture with links to the M4 and both bridges. Unless the promised developments and improvements go ahead, the valleys initiative and talk of improvement in the area are nonsense.
  The Confederation of British Industry, the Welsh Development Agency, all our local authorities, the trade unions and every political party in Wales recognise the importance of a second crossing for Wales. That is why we welcome it. However, there are essential and important safeguards which I hope will be built into the Bill as it goes through its somewhat complicated parliamentary procedure.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West rightly pointed to the need to have another look at the basis on which the bridge is financed. The Department of Transport is providing £148 million and the Welsh Office £45 million. The linkage of both bridges may bring many problems for the future financing of this bridge. The Standing Conference on Regional Policy in South Wales has never accepted the £122 million historic debt, saying that it should be written off. If that is done, it will bring about a 20 per cent. reduction in tolls on the bridge. We need a thorough financial investigation into that.
  There is a need to protect the countryside and wildlife. We must pay special regard to Avon and Gwent which will be affected by noise and visual intrusion. There is also a need to ensure proper connections from the bridge to the M4 and M5. We in Wales believe that if there is a motorway standard of four lanes each way in England, it is right and proper that there should be a similar one in Wales. There is no reason whatever for any differentiation between Wales and England in that respect.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East said, we must be extremely careful that the building of the bridge is not a precedent for future schemes in Britain. John Laing is backed by French financial institutions which want to break into the United Kingdom market to finance infrastructure projects privately. That might not be good for the British economy generally.
  The tolls are of great concern to the people of Wales. Some months ago tolls were increased to £2 for cars. I believed, as did many hon. Members, that that was to sweeten possible buyers and to make the bridge more acceptable to the private sector. Under the present regime the tolls will end by 2006. Today hon. Members have repeatedly pointed out that it is not right that increased tolls should be levied on the existing bridge, before the new crossing is built. That is wholly unacceptable. Under the Bill, tolls will possibly continue until 2025.
  The Department of Transport should deal with the maintenance costs after 2006, thus ensuring lower tolls. It is unbelievable—indeed, it is staggering—that in the past 20 years the tolls have increased by 1,600 per cent.—an increase in real terms of 135 per cent. The cost of collecting

  663
  the tolls amounts to 26 per cent. of the total income from tolls. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) rightly referred to the findings on tolls of the Select Committee on Transport and I hope that they will form a backcloth to our consideration of this Bill in Committee.
  The Bill envisages big increases for private cars—an immediate 42·5 per cent. increase to £2·85 and, assuming 8 per cent. inflation, an increase to £4·50 by 1995. Goods vehicles will pay twice the present level. Those figures should be reviewed during the passage of the Bill. The Bill does not make provision for local authorities and others to object to increased tolls over the next 30 years, as they can do at present. That is wholly unacceptable. In Committee and elsewhere, we shall press to have that changed.
  I hope that the Minister will agree that the two bridges should be the joint responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales. The Bill envisages that only the Secretary of State for Transport will have responsibility. That is wrong. The Welsh Office has an important role to play.
  The whole of Wales will look with great interest at what is to occur. The crossing is of great importance to our economy. Unless we get it right now, we shall store up immense social and economic problems for the future of our country.
  6.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): It gives me great pleasure as Minister of State to commend this Bill to the House and to have heard the general welcome for it, despite the many detailed criticisms which I cannot possibly answer in the few minutes remaining to me. My personal pleasure is heightened by the fact that I witnessed the key stages of the construction of the existing bridge, and I was present at its opening by Her Majesty the Queen in 1966. It was not thought to be poorly designed then.
  I have also had the pleasure of playing a part in drawing up the present proposals since we began thinking about them, as the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) reminded us, in the early 1980s. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the thinking that has gone into the proposals is by no means a negation of the Government's responsibility; rather, it is a demonstration of their total commitment.
  Since the bridge was opened 25 years ago, it has made a vital contribution to the major economic growth of south Wales and has added to the attractiveness of the area for incoming investment from the United Kingdom and abroad. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport noted, the bridge has become something of a victim of its own success. The increasing demands placed upon it, particularly in the past decade, have led to the need for increased capacity and we are now seeking to meet that within the provisions of the Bill.
  There is no question in our mind, and certainly not in the minds of hon. Members representing Wales, about the need for the second Severn crossing. Its importance to Wales, and to both sides of the estuary, cannot be overstated. I believe that the scheme in the Bill is exciting
  664
  and presents great opportunities for the future. The bridge will be an international showpiece, and it will provide an impressive gateway to Wales.
  The bridge's design features will relieve many of the difficulties experienced on the existing crossing. It will be a dual three-lane motorway, plus hard shoulder, which will reduce the risk of congestion from breakdowns and accidents. Most importantly, the new bridge will have wind shielding throughout its entire length which will ensure that the new crossing will remain open to all traffic except during the most extreme weather conditions. All that, together with the reduced length of the proposed route as compared with that via the existing bridge, will relieve present and predicted traffic congestion. It will also result in considerable savings in time and vehicle operating costs.
  On a broader level, the new crossing will help greatly to maintain and increase the momentum of economic regeneration in Wales. It will improve the profitability of industry by facilitating access to the rest of Great Britain and Europe.
  I also welcome the opportunities provided in the Bill for participation with the private sector in undertaking such a development. In common with other major infrastructure schemes of this kind, there will inevitably be local concerns. We have consulted widely on the scheme at various stages of its planning and we have been sensitive to local opinion as we have developed our proposals. In Wales we have been conscious, for example, of the effects on villages such as Rogiet, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport, East, which will be close to the route of the new approach road. We have also recognised the concerns expressed in planning the route. We recognise the impact of the new crossing on other parts of Wales and on other roads in Wales, such as the A469, mentioned by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) seemed to welcome the scheme, but he was critical about its financing—the tolling—and other aspects. I must tell him, however, that it was a Labour Government who enacted the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965, which originally provided for tolling at the present bridge. In recent years this Government have also recognised tolls as a means by which private enterprise and initiative can be harnessed for the provision of not only estuarial crossings but new roads. A Bill that would facilitate a more general provision in future of new toll roads and crossings is currently being considered in another place.
  In the case of the second Severn bridge, two strong arguments lead us to the conclusion that the best way to finance the project is through tolls. I do not want to press the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on whether he is reneging on the views expressed in 1964 by the then Labour Minister, whose opinion was clear:
  "My policy is that tolls should be charged on expensive new river crossings, such as the Severn Bridge, which will provide exceptional savings in cost and time to a clearly defined category of road users."—[Official Report, 8 December 1964; Vol. 703, c. 186.]
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East also referred to the second report of the Select Committee on Transport for 1985–86. The Government's policy on the tolling of estuarial crossings was explained clearly in their reply to that report, and that policy has not changed. Hon. Members have mentioned other crossings, but it would not be practicable to levy tolls at all estuarial crossings,

  665
  especially when a convenient alternative to that crossing exists—the A55, for example, is in close proximity to the new tunnel under the Conwy, in my constituency.
  I assure the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that the privately funded scheme for the provision of the second Severn crossing was selected on the basis that it offered the best overall value for money of all those schemes submitted, whether for private or public financing, by the selected bidders. Bids for the scheme were sought on terms as near as practicable to being directly comparable. Before a final decision was made, the shortlisted bids were exhaustively evaluated to assess the full range of costs and benefits, direct and indirect, which each offered. The assessment took into account, for example, the implications of cost overruns, the extent to which risks were being borne by the concessionaire or the taxpayer, and the amounts of tax payable.
  Mr. Alan Williams rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I have just one minute left.
  Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has referred to alternative designs and costings. In Committee it would be advantageous to have those alternative costings and other such information. Once we go into Committee, I will be unable to raise that matter with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and therefore I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to give a guarantee that he will make that information available to the House.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Many of the arguments that have been made in this short debate cannot be answered within the minute remaining. Those matters will arise again at local level before the Select Committee and when the Bill is in Committee.
  I stress that the Bill will undoubtedly result in positive benefits to those in Wales and on the Severn side. It represents an important step in bringing the resources of the private sector into a major transport project. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection.
  That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—
  666

  (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the twenty-first day after this day, and

  (b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee,

  being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
  That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Select Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
  That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.
  That three be the Quorum of the Select Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

SEVERN BRIDGES BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Severn Bridges Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State under the Act and of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money so provided.—[Mr. Patnick.]

WAYS AND MEANS

  SEVERN BRIDGES BILL
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Severn Bridges Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the levying of tolls by the Secretary of State in respect of vehicles using the existing Severn bridge or the second Severn bridge constructed in pursuance of the Act,

  (2) the imposition of charges in respect of the removal, or the repair, adjustment or refuelling, of vehicles at rest in places on or near the bridges in relation to which regulations made under the Act have effect, and

  (3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by or on behalf of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That, since no Petitions remain against the Bill, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
7 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: The Bill has been drafted to give the two generating companies the power to do nothing more than lay cooling water works in the river Humber. Those works will serve generating stations being built under powers already granted by the Secretary of State for Energy. Therefore, we are not discussing—at least, I hope that we are not discussing—the principle of building a power station on that site. In addition, we should not be discussing the virtues of one form of generation against any other. Those issues have been discussed elsewhere over many years.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave consent as long ago as June 1972 to the suitability of the Killingholme site for power generation. The House endorsed that decision in July 1972 by approving the Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act 1972. The Secretary of State for Energy gave further consent in 1990 for PowerGen and National Power each to build a combined cycle gas turbine development with a capacity of up to 1,000 MW. At that time no organisations with legitimate interests in the river objected to the proposals. It was made clear that cooling water supplies would need to be taken from, and returned to, the river Humber. That applied whatever type of fuel was used.
By virtue of the Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act and the 1990 planning consent, both the House and the Secretary of State for Energy have already endorsed the decision to build generating stations on a site at Killingholme. In essence, the new Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill merely seeks the permission of the House to build shorter cooling water intake and outfall works than would have been built under the 1972 Act. Therefore, all that is now required is statutory approval for the laying of pipes related to that development. The generating stations are already under construction by virtue of the planning consent that has already been obtained. Therefore, it is absolutely essential
668
for the House to agree to revive the Bill today and allow it to pass through its various stages so that the ancillary works required for the generating stations can be started.
Objectors to the Bill at this late stage have already cost a great deal of time and money and it is difficult to see why.
Mr. Michael Welsh: The hon. Gentleman says that the objectors have cost a lot of money because time has been taken, but it is important to explain that until last November it was illegal to pass the Bill. In 1975 the Council of Ministers decided that gas could not be used to make electricity. Therefore, nobody had held up the Bill except the EC because permission was only given last November.
Mr. Knapman: I was merely referring to the fact that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and, later, the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) saw fit to object to the Bill. Those objections have delayed the Bill, which seems perfectly straightforward and I cannot see why that should have been done.
National Power and PowerGen are required to promote the private Bill. The Bill is required to overcome the prohibitions of the Humber Conservancy Act 1905 that prevents the laying of pipes on or in the foreshore and bed of the Humber between the river line and the high water mark without parliamentary approval, which is why we are here today. Therefore, by promoting the Bill, National Power and PowerGen are complying with the parliamentary requirements of the 1905 Act; they are not in any way attempting to circumvent normal planning procedures—far from it. The relevant local authorities have been consulted and have given consent to the proposed plans for the power stations. They have stated that they will not object to the cooling water works proposals outlined in the 1989 Bill.
As evidence of local authority approval, I have a letter from Glanford borough council dated 11 December 1989 stating that the borough council's planning committee has no objections to the Bill's proposals. The letter was from the senior solicitor of Glanford borough council, writing to the planning and development services officer of the Central Electricity Generating Board. It stated:
"Dear Sirs,
Re: Proposed Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill.
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."
Mr. Malcolm Moss: It was interesting to hear the letter sent from Glanford borough council planning committee, but is it not also true that Humberside county council, which is Labour controlled, did not object to the proposal?
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. It is my understanding that no objections from any of the local interested parties have been received. I intended to read out a list of the various organisations which have not objected.
The local authorities have taken the same stance in respect of the power stations proposed by the CEGB in 1972 and again in 1989, after the CEGB, National Power and PowerGen had revised plans for the site and decided to build smaller capacity combined cycle gas turbine stations. Furthermore—this is what Opposition Members are putting at risk—the plants will provide immediate

669
short-term employment for construction workers, and local employment once the plant is in operation. Up to 550 workers will be employed by PowerGen during the construction phase and National Power will need about 350 workers.
Consultations have taken place not only with local authorities, but with the National Rivers Authority, which will need to approve the proposals before a licence can be granted to permit the two generators to extract water from and discharge water into the Humber. Other consultations have been undertaken during the drafting and preview stages of the Bill. Where necessary, the proposals in the Bill have been amended to provide appropriate safeguards as requested by interested parties, or appropriate undertakings have been given.
The following organisations have already been consulted as a result, and there has been no further correspondence from British Telecom since December 1989. The Yorkshire electricity board has said that none of its apparatus will be affected and British Gas has said that no gas apparatus will be affected. The British Coal Corporation confirmed on 23 January 1990 that it was content. As for Anglian Water plc, an undertaking to Anglian Water Services Limited has been agreed a nd an executed document is awaited. The Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Associated British Ports, Humber Oil Terminals Trustees Limited, Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham), and the National Rivers Authority have all been consulted. None have any objections.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Private Bills go through a certain procedure; there are advertisements in the newspapers that the Bill is proceeding through the House and the public are advised of how they can gain access to its proceedings, but I know from my experience of local government that the vast majority of the public in the affected area may be unaware that the Bill is going through the House, and even if they are aware of it they are at a loss to understand how to go about voicing their concerns about it. I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that the national interested parties have been made aware of the Bill, but perhaps the general public are unaware of its implications. I know of at least one previous Bill whose effects were unknown to the public.
Mr. Knapman: I am surprised to hear that, because among the bodies that I have stated have no objection are Glanford borough council and the Labour-controlled county council. I should have thought that they would not have reached their decision before ascertaining local opinion. If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that those councils, most of whose members belong to his party, have not taken the opportunity to find out what public opinion is, something is wrong. I do not believe that he thinks, on further reflection, that that is so.
Dr. Michael Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from trying to circumvent normal planning procedures, were it not for the Humber Conservancy Act 1905, if the promoters of the Bill had applied for planning consent in the usual way it would have been granted to them? It is only because of the 1905 Act that my hon. Friend has had to bring the matter to the House today.
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The 1905 Act was passed to extend and amend Acts of 1852
670
and of 1899 which conferred further powers on the commissioners. The original Acts were passed to draw a uniform development line in the river beyond which tidal works could not extend. The purpose of the 1905 Act was to protect the river regime and navigation on the river. It conferred powers on the commissioners to dredge the river and to carry out other works to assist and improve navigation. So the commissioners can exercise certain powers but not others. The 1905 Act mentions private Acts of Parliament being required, which is why we are here tonight—so my hon. Friend was absolutely correct.
The Humber Conservancy Acts were enacted to confer powers on the commissioners for the protection of the river regime and of navigable waters. Subject to the provisions of the 1905 Act, no person may make or form any recess, dock bed for boat or barges, basin, pier or jetty, landing place, quay or embankement wall or other works on the foreshore or bed of the Humber between the river lines and high water mark. The only way in which the prohibitions in the 1905 Act can be overcome is by the promotion of a further Act of Parliament—hence the need for this Bill and this revival motion.
The House has already given approval to the laying of pipes in the Humber—when it approved the July 1972 Act. Unfortunately, that Act gave approval for pipes which are longer than necessary for the current power station developments. So the design of the 1972 cooling waterworks cannot be optimised. Further, Associated British Ports would require the 1972 works to be lowered should it be required at some future date to dredge the river as part of its statutory duties. Indeed, the 1972 Act was designed to give the then CEGB powers to lay pipes in the Humber for a much larger 4,000 MW power station and it laid down in some detail the length of the cooling water works permitted. The Act allowed for two works extending from the shore into the river in a north-easterly direction for a distance of new fewer than 530 yds or 486 m and terminating in an intake of 780 yds or 715 m, terminating in an outfall.
The Act allowed these intake and outfall works to be moved vertically and laterally within the limits of deviation but regrettably it prohibited any substantial alteration, including any substantial reduction in the lengths of the pipes. By comparison, under the 1989 Bill the longest specified intake would be only 390 m and the longest specified outfall only 290. As a result, the obligations of the 1972 Act would require the companies to build pipes that would extend and intrude further into the river Humber than is required, and longer pipes would involve the companies in much greater construction costs. In addition, section 35 of the 1972 Act gave consent, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, for the works if they were commenced within five years of the passing of the Act. Those powers have now expired.
National Power and PowerGen intend to build combined cycle gas turbine stations which, like any other power stations, need cooling water works. National Power is building a station of 650 MW and PowerGen two stations of 450 MW each. These stations will use indirect cooling works and will need much less water than if they used direct cooling methods such as those proposed under the works in the 1972 Act. The system of indirect cooling ensures that there is less environmental impact on the river Humber than would result from direct cooling works.
The indirect cooling system will involve water being passed through the condensers and cooled by air using

671
cooling towers with the same water, which is then recirculated. Only the water evaporated in the cooling towers and a small quantity of purge water is required to be replaced, therefore. So the combination of indirect cooling and combined cycle gas turbine technology means that requirements for cooling water are significantly reduced. The Killingholme development will require only about 5 per cent. of the water used for direct cooling at existing power stations.
Mr. Redmond: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I cannot understand why he is promoting this Bill. I could find no reason why he should in the Register of Members' Interests. How did he come to draw the short straw and end up promoting this Bill?
Mr. Knapman: The answer is that I am a man of many parts and many talents.
Dr. Michael Clark: It is important that we fully understand what my hon. Friend is proposing. Will he confirm that the 1972 Act contained proposals for various works which were considerably longer and deeper than the works proposed in this Bill, and that due to the wording of the 1972 Act those works cannot be contracted, shortened or made smaller in any way? This Bill will enable the works to be diminished as compared with those proposed in 1972.
Mr. Knapman: I can confirm all that my hon. Friend says. The outfalls anticipated in the 1972 Act are approximately double the length of those that are now proposed. That is good environmentally and commercially and in every other sense. It is therefore difficult to see why there are objections to the Bill.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: I am becoming confused about the hon. Gentleman's proposals. Perhaps he could assist. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is presenting a revival motion to the House.
Mr. Moss: That is correct.
Mr. Eadie: If the Bill is approved, it will require a Second Reading. Is that correct?
Mr. Moss: That is correct.
Mr. Eadie: That assists the House to some extent. I do not quarrel with the way in which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) presents his case, but he gives the House the impression that the revival motion is it, so to speak.
Mr. Knapman: I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is presenting the motion, and I am trying to show hon. Members who object to the Bill the folly of their ways. The Bill has absolutely nothing to do with coal or with the choice of fuel. I fear that it is a mundane Bill dealing with certain types of inlets to and outlets from the Humber to the power stations which are already being constructed. I should love to talk about coal and about the paper produced by the Labour party which says that we should rely almost entirely on coal, but if I did so I should immediately be ruled out of order.
Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to say how the debate
672
should be conducted and to lay down strictures? He is certainly entitled to articulate his opinion and his interpretation of the motion that he presents, but it is for the Chair to determine the conduct of the debate. I seek guidance on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Bill has not yet been debated in the House. As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) says, we are debating a revival motion and comments must be related to that. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is introducing the motion, and as the Bill has not yet been debated in the House, I thought it right to give him reasonable latitude to explain the background to the motion. That is why I am giving him more than the customary flexibility.
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Frank Haynes: It is not often that I smell a rat in this place, but I smell one now.
Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman used that line during the debate on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.
Mr. Haynes: Yes, because I smelt a rat then too. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is also involved in this. There are a number of faces in the House which are familiar to such debates. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) mentioned PowerGen. Is he aware that, in its magazine, PowerGen said that it would get this approved by August last year? What have these familiar faces been up to? My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) was right when he said that the hon. Member for Stroud had drawn the short straw. He is pouring out a load of rubbish and we have to put up with it.
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman is right in only one respect—that he has to put up with it.
The Bill is in five parts, but I shall not take the House through all of them in any detail. Hon. Members may be grateful for that, but of course on Second Reading I may be forced to speak at some length. Part I deals with the preliminaries and gives details of the phrases used in the Bill. Part II details the works involved. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members had spent 10 minutes reading part II of the Bill, they would not be so excited.
Schedule 4 details all the works that National Power would be given power to construct and provides for three intakes and three outfalls of modest length compared with the long ones proposed in the 1972 Bill. Schedule 5 details the rights given to PowerGen to construct works. It has similar rights for works Nos. 7 to 12.
Part III gives the power to acquire land. That is entirely normal and largely in accordance with the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Part IV is the crux of the matter. It contains the protective provisions for other bodies which are interested in the Bill and which have made no objection whatever. Under schedule 25 is the Humber Bridge board and under schedule 26 is Associated British Ports.
Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman is likely to make his own speech, but I shall give way to him once again.
Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman has said several times that the people who were consulted have no

673
objections. When did the promoters of the Bill meet the various bodies to discuss amendments to take account of objections? Has PowerGen or National Power given any money to meet certain requirements of objectors?
Mr. Knapman: Not to my knowledge, for the simple reason that until the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) objected to the Bill no one else had objected to it. Of course it went through the other place and therefore the question of objection does not arise.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that no one objected because the battle about the type of power station to be built and whether it should be gas fired, oil fired or nuclear powered is over? A decision has been taken and those with coal mining interests who seek to delay proceedings on this revival motion only deprive the whole of the north-east, and Humberside in particular, of badly needed power. Power stations have to be justified, but that argument is over and it is pointless to talk about cooling water which all power stations have to use.
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is right. Not only would other forms of power station require greater amounts of water to be abstracted from the Humber, but in 1972 there was something of a storm when an oil-fired station was proposed. Subsequent happenings led to proposals for a gas-fired station. In early 1991 people are still fighting the battles that were fought in 1972 and no doubt the Opposition are still fighting many of the battles of the 1930s.
As I have said, part IV of the Bill is the crux of the matter. It contains the protective provisions and touches on the intervention of the hon. Member for Don Valley. It mentions the Humber Bridge Board and Associated British Ports and more recently the British Coal Corporation. That is a summary of the Bill.
The progress of the Bill is as follows. It was promoted successfully through the other place, despite a challenge from the Coalfied Communities Campaign. It is important to note that it did not allege that the proposals in the Bill were in any way defective, but said that the generation of electricity from gas would have a consequential effect on its members' welfare. That objection was defeated in Committee in the other place on 10 May 1990. Therefore, the Bill was placed before an unopposed Lords Committee on 24 May and received its formal Third Reading on 18 June. The House of Commons received the Bill on the same day. It was formally tabled and blocked, as I have described.
I see no reason why the Bill should have been blocked, as my hon. Friends have said, and I hope that with the information that I have given the House will see its way clear to pass this revival motion.
7.30 pm
Mr. George J. Buckley: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said glibly that there was nothing dangerous or difficult in the Bill as it related to the generation of electricity. I beg to differ. We cannot ignore the fact that these power stations will be powered by gas. The suggestion that they might be powered by nuclear energy caused quite a stir. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made strong representations on that.
Mr. Moss: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Secretary of State has given clearance, under the Electricity Act 1989, for two power stations burning gas to be on the Killingholme site, and that this motion has nothing whatever to do with nuclear power?
Mr. Buckley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) said, the Secretary of State was acting illegally because, under the European regulations, it was illegal for him to give permission for power stations to generate electricity by gas. I suspect that the Bill has been delayed to allow the Government the opportunity to persuade the EEC to withdraw its reservations about using gas to generate electricity.
The hon. Member for Stroud said that if we delayed the Bill or opposed it so strongly that we defeated it we would deprive the north-east of much-needed energy. However, my understanding is that the north-east is quite well endowed with electricity and that the shortage of power is in the south. The Government and other organisations have urged us to reduce our electricity demands, so it is more likely that we shall have over-capacity than shortage of capacity in electricity generation.
We had a long debate on another private Bill concerned with the use of the Humber to import large tonnages of coal. The Humber is becoming an increasingly important and busy estuary to the extent that there may be danger to shipping. I do not suggest that the power stations have anything to do with shipping, but they do have something to do with the use of the Humber estuary, which is important.
The situation is not as clear as the hon. Member for Stroud claimed. He spoke about depriving the Humber estuary area of much-needed employment. I could understand it if an hon. Member representing that area made that point, but I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Stroud made it. While it would not affect his constituency, the project would affect my constituency and those of other hon. Members, and, in particular, it would affect employment in the area.
Conservative Members may dismiss, off the cuff, our arguments in favour of the use of coal as a major generating source. However, although the project may result in a few jobs for the area, our constituents will lose jobs because of the change in the generation of electricity from solid fuel. Conservative Members should understand that we make our points on the basis of the interest of our constituents. There is no joy in our constituents losing thousands of jobs while the Killingholme project creates a few jobs, whether in short-term construction or long-term generation.
Mr. Knapman: I repeat that the Bill is not about which type of power is used to generate electricity. It is purely about pipes into and from the Humber. That is the point of the Bill. Therefore, employment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is not affected by the Bill.
Mr. Buckley: It has a direct effect on the constituents whom I represent because the proposed power stations will be powered by gas rather than solid fuel.
In a debate on energy and generation, we should talk about the consequences of using gas as a major producer of electricity. It could have economic, employment and balance of payments consequences. The short-term thinking by the Government and the promoters of the Bill,

675
on behalf of PowerGen and National Power, leads them to say that there are no significant consequences in converting to the production of electricity by gas.
Mr. Eadie: It is remarkable that attempts to circumscribe the debate have been made. My hon. Friend is showing the impact of the Bill. Does he agree that there has been a change since the Bill was first mooted and since the first attempts to push it through the House? I recall telling the House in a previous debate that , when I met the Norwegian commanders in NATO, I asked them what would happen if a conflict broke out in the North sea and what consequences it would have for the oil and gas installations. They told me that the installations could not be defended. As a strategic aspect is now involved, because we may soon be involved in a war in the Gulf, the situation has changed since the House last addressed the subject.
Mr. Buckley: I take my hon. Friend's point. The impact of the Bill will be more far-reaching than the hon. Member for Stroud has suggested. He is talking about inputs and outtakes of water from the Humber and short pipes and long pipes. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) spoke about drawing the short straw rather than the long pipe, and the hon. Gentleman is suffering from that. I do not want to lumber the hon. Member with this, but he is not wrestling with the short Pipe.
Mr. Dickens: PowerGen and National Power have given undertakings to honour their contracts as large buyers of British coal up until 1993. Subsequently, they expect to be major buyers of British coal as long as negotiations lead to a commercially sensible conclusion. I do not see why that should end. British Coal would still be the biggest supplier to those organisations.
Mr. Buckley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is relevant to the argument that I am advancing on behalf of my constituents. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, however, that the two power stations could be built within a three-year contract? That is the contract that British Coal has with National Power and PowerGen, and it is linked to a certain tonnage of coal. I accept that my constituents have an interest in investment in British Coal—
Mr. Alan Meale: Perhaps my hon. Friend will remind the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) that evidence was given to the Select Committee on Energy by the Central Electricity Generating Board that it would like to import up to 10 million tonnes of foreign coal through the ports on the east coast.
Mr. Buckley: We are, of course, talking about gas. A Bill dealing with the importation of coal has passed through the House and the consequences for the coal industry of that measure will be considerable. We are talking about an alternative fuel—gas—that will offer security and continuity of supply. Perhaps gas will not provide the guarantees for which some Conservative Members hope.
Some of the gas supplied from the North sea is coming from the Norwegian sector. If power stations are turning towards gas, the increased demand will be met by the
676
Norwegian sector, not the British sector. Conservative Members have tried to talk down the consequences of the Bill, but we must consider the long-term consequences if the Government decide that gas-fired power generation is something that should be expanded. What would be the consequences for gas supply if we started building gas-powered generating stations along estuaries? Given the Gulf crisis, much of our imported supply would come from politically vulnerable areas. In the long term, much of our gas supply might have to come from the Soviet Union, for example, which has had recent experience of—
Mr. Moss: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how we are to be supplied with gas from the Soviet Union when there is no pipeline across the North sea.
Mr. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman's intervention illustrates the limited knowledge of Conservative Members. Europe is linked to the Soviet Union by a major gas supply pipe.
There is a shortfall in electricity supply in the south-east of the United Kingdom, not the north-east. A gas supply link between the United Kingdom and Europe would be a requirement if gas-fired power stations were situated in the south-east. It would be convenient to be linked to a major supply of gas from the Urals, for example.
Another major supply of gas would come from Algeria, which is another area of political difficulty, especially when we consider the long-term supply of gas, which will have a significant effect on future energy supplies generally to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Moss: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He is saying that with the Gulf crisis, or a Gulf war, we shall not have enough gas in the short to medium term and that we shall have to import it from the Soviet Union through a non-existent pipeline or import from Algeria by sea, presumably in liquefied form. Is he not aware that it was said in evidence to the Select Committee on Energy that there is about 10 GW of capacity from the known reserves of British Gas and that that could be used to produce electricity over and above the current demand of the country as a whole through the civilian subscribers to British Gas?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a revival motion, and hon. Members must address their remarks to that.
Mr. Buckley: I strayed from the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was concerned about the long-term consequences if two power stations are dependent on North sea gas for their power generation. That is relevant to the energy policy that is being outlined for the future. I see that the sponsor, the hon. Member for Stroud, is receiving another briefing from his adviser, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark). I understand that the hon. Member for Stroud was prompted earlier in the debate. It is good to receive expert advice from Conservative Members who are mindful of the problems that we face.
Mr. Moss: It is good advice.
Mr. Buckley: It may be good advice.
The Bill seeks to amend or change earlier proposals. It is—
Dr. Michael Clark: The 1972 legislation contained a proposal to build a 4,000 MW oil-fired power station. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about employment in his constituency. I understand also that the coal lobby wants to ensure that as much coal is burnt as possible. It is proposed now that there should be a maximum of 2,000 MW of gas-fired generation. That is only half of that which was proposed in 1972. I accept that the 1972 proposal was based on non-coal-fired generation, as is the current proposal. I repeat, however, that the current proposal is only half the non-coal proposal of 1972. It is possible that that is the reason for a Labour-controlled local authority in the area in question being in favour of the proposal. Less electricity will be produced than that which would have been generated if the 1972 proposal had been implemented, and there will be more scope for more coal to be burnt elsewhere.
Mr. Buckley: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy for the expert information that he has given to the House. The hon. Gentleman has given support to my argument. The need to increase generation in the north-east is not as valid as Conservative Members have claimed. I accept that the 1972 proposal of 4,000 MW has been reduced by 50 per cent. That means that an increase in energy supply is not justified in terms of the 1972 legislation.
Mr. Redmond: The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) lost me in his intervention. He suggested that a reduction from 4,000 to 2,000 MW would be beneficial because that would enable us to burn more coal elsewhere. I oppose the carry-over motion because of the impact that the Bill will have on the country generally. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that there is no national power policy or energy policy. We are living from hand to mouth, and that is why my hon. Friends and I are concerned about the future. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the House whether he agrees that there should be a national energy policy to replace the prevailing market forces.
Mr. Buckley: My hon. Friend emphasises the main point of my argument, which is that the Bill represents a slipshod approach to Britain's energy supply problem on which the Government have no short-term or long-term policy. We seem to be basing our requirements on imported energy. That is ludicrous when one considers the abundance of energy to which this country has had access over the past decade. We were in the forefront of developing nuclear energy, and we had the bonanza of North sea oil, together with an abundance of coal reserves and North sea gas as well.
As to North sea gas reserves, which are fairly extensive, if we substantially increase our consumption from that source, we shall increasingly come to depend in the near future on other sources of gas supply.
Although I acknowledge the points made by those who support the carry-over motion, the effects will be more far reaching than the length of a pipe into the estuary and the amount of water that will flow through it. The stations will have an impact on long-term thinking about this nation's energy's supplies.
Mr. Michael Brown rose—
7.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): It may be helpful if I intervene briefly at this stage to give the Government's general view of the Bill and of the revival motion in particular. I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that I will not speak long enough to exclude him from contributing to the debate.
The works authorised by the Bill will form an integral part of two new gas-fired power stations that are to be constructed by National Power and PowerGen on Humberside. They are among the first of a new generation of gas-fired stations that offer certain efficiency and environmental advantages. Such stations are quicker and cheaper to construct, and the Government see no objection to them on environmental grounds. In fact, in terms of global warming, there may be advantages in generating electricity, at least in part, by burning more gas.
As the House may know, a gas-fired power station produces virtually no sulphur dioxide and only about one quarter of the nitrogen oxides and about one half of the carbon dioxide emissions for the same electrical output as an equivalent coal-fired power station. As we believe it probable that there will be an increase in global atmospheric temperatures due to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is obviously important that we find ways in the years ahead of stabilising and perhaps reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Dr. Michael Clark: I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister must take a neutral stance in respect of the Bill, but is not he being slightly unfair when he says that the Government have no objections to the stations on environmental grounds? Would not it be fairer to say that, on environmental grounds, the Government welcome the burning of gas rather than coal?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This is not my Bill, but I will indicate my position at the end of these remarks. As the environment has been mentioned several times, I thought it proper to give just an outline of the Government's attitude. I have already indicated that, in terms of protecting the global atmosphere, the burning of gas offers certain advantages over other fossil fuels.
Mr. Redmond: The technology is available to reduce toxic emissions from coal-fired stations, but a softly-softly approach is being adopted because of the cost of adopting it. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on the part that gas could play in the Bill, in respect of long-term requirements and a national energy policy. I understand that the price of coal has been pegged in relative terms to inflation in order to maintain a market for coal within the generation game. However, the price of electricity to the consumer has shot up, and it now bears no relation to the generators' costs. What is being done with those profits? Why are they not being ploughed back into energy generation by coal and into developing methods for reducing toxic emissions? That would produce genuine good, and create real competition between the various forms of energy.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Each form of energy generation offers its own balance of advantages and disadvantages. One advantage of gas over coal is that it produces less carbon dioxide for every unit of electricity. However, I

679
agree with the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) that it is important that British Coal finds ways of burning coal more cleanly—and we fully support any efforts made in that direction.
I may say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) that the global environment is not the only consideration, and that gas offers other advantages. It can be piped direct to the power station from the source, without the requirement for road or rail transport of fuel or of the resulting ash.
Mr. Eadie: The Minister is merely repeating the brief that we have all received from PowerGen about the advantages of the proposal. Given the question put to him by the hon. Member for Rocford (Dr. Clark), the Minister has a responsibility and a duty to be objective. The hon. Member for Rochford tried to compel the Minister to declare that the Government really prefer gas-generated energy. In the interests of objectivity, and in order that the House may be properly informed, the Minister will surely agree that if flue gas desulphurisation equipment were installed in coal-fired stations, that would make them environmentally friendly. Does the Minister agree that it is not for British Coal but for the power station operators to decide whether flue gas desulphurisation is to be installed?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of being hostile to coal in principle. I do not have an absolute preference for gas. Nor do I disapprove of coal, in principle. However, it is a fact of chemistry that burning a unit of coal produces more carbon dioxide than does an equivalent unit of gas. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there are technical and chemical ways of extracting sulphur dioxide from coal emissions, for example—and we are most anxious to promote that technology.
I am unwilling to go into too much detail about the substance of the Bill. If the revival motion is approved there may be an opportunity for us to debate the issue at greater length at another time. Also, the Government see no objection on efficiency grounds—indeed we envisage certain advantages—to building some additional gas-fired power stations, because combined cycle gas turbine generators will operate at about 50 per cent. efficiency, compared to 38 per cent. efficiency from the best coal-burning power stations available at present.
Mr. Michael Welsh: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is it efficient to have a gas power station, which may operate well, if a couple of pits have to be closed, leaving coal which can never be removed as the shafts are completely filled in? In the long term, is that efficiency, or is it bad planning?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am unwilling to get into a general debate about the coal industry—an industry which I am most anxious to see prosper—because we are debating a revival motion. However, I look forward to debating the future of the British coal industry with the hon. Gentleman at some future date.
I must return to the point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already approved the application to build these two power stations on Humberside. Therefore, it is obvious that we should also approve the application to provide the ancillary works. In
680
the light of that, the Government hope that the House will approve the revival motion to enable the Bill to proceed to a Second Reading at another time.
8.1 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not wish to keep the House too long. We welcome the Minister's commitment, and the Government's full support, for British Coal becoming more environmentally conscious through clean coal burning, although I think that that is the first time that I have heard that said. Perhaps the new Minister could explain to British Coal why, for the past few years, it has received no more than 1·5 per cent. of the research and development budget of millions that the Government have put into nuclear and other energy industries. Perhaps he could also explain why last year, when the Grimethorpe project sought help from the public sector, as directed by the Government, and received about £5 million from a Scandinavian company which later pulled out, the project was on the brink of collapse. It was one of the most advanced projects for clean coal burning in the world. I hope that the Minister, in his new post, will consider these issues, because they have worried many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I am also interested to hear that the Government see no objection to this development. I wish that we were discussing this matter after having had a debate on the Government's intentions for energy. Once again, we are debating a private Bill from a troubled area of Britain. We must have spent more time debating Killingholme than any other place in Britain. Tonight we are again discussing Killingholme and its effect on a national energy strategy, but we have been unable to discuss that strategy. I do not want to go into too much detail tonight because if the carry-over motion is approved we shall want to consider the absence of a national energy strategy and its effect on the present proposals. However, I must point out that I find it difficult to talk about a car exhaust without referring to the internal combustion engine, and I should have thought that most people would have the same problem.
The Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act 1972, which referred to outlay pipes from a power station which was to be built on the site, stopped the development. Therefore, we must in some small degree discuss developments on the site.
I speak on behalf of the Labour party when I say that we are reluctant to give our approval to the Bill, as it will enable the construction of two gas turbine generating stations without the House having given due consideration to the implications of increasing gas generation of electricity.
World supplies of gas are plentiful at the moment—we all know that—but they are finite. More important, in the short term, Britain's supplies of gas are limited. At current levels of consumption, United Kingdom gas will last between 25 and 40 years. If we allow gas to become a major generator of electricity, adding another 30 or 40 per cent. to present United Kingdom gas demand, we shall soon find ourselves dependent on gas imports—whether from Norway or the Soviet Union, we shall have to wait and see. Norway has a wide choice of alternative purchasers for its gas. Germany has taken an option on the Troll field and it is likely that we shall be considering repairing the existing European pipeline and building another and importing our gas from Russia.

681
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) said in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) that there was no gas pipeline from Russia or northern Europe into this country at present. A number of years ago the Energy Select Committee—the Chairman of the Committee is present—produced a gas depletion policy document, and it was, and still is, the only obvious choice to couple into northern Europe when Britain's gas runs out. It is very likely that, out of all the gas producers that we know of at present and can envisage in the future, Russia will be a major exporter of gas to this country. That has major implications for us all and anyone with any knowledge of energy worldwide will know that that will be the case in the not-too-distant future if we start to generate electricity from gas. That was prevented until late last year when the EC directive that covered this country was withdrawn without any debate in the House about the effect that its withdrawal would have on our energy policies.
It has been reported that National Power has secured a supply for Killingholme A station from the Caister field, off the Lincolnshire coast, in the southern North sea. It has further been reported that that field has gas to last for only seven or eight years. The Minister said that this development would have little effect on the country, that gas would be piped direct to the station and that the Government envisaged no problems. However, combined cycle gas turbines have a lifetime which is much longer than seven or eight years. Where will the gas come from when the Caister field runs out? What will be the cost of gas at that time?
Mr. Redmond: At the moment there is a big gas sale on, encouraging home owners to install gas. However, one needs to consider the long term, perhaps 30 years from now. Reference has been made to gas consumption. If gas begins to run out, the law of supply and demand will prevail, prices will escalate and, even though power-generated gas stations would cease production, house owners would be required to meet the escalating cost of gas.
Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is right. I know that the current war situation is on all our minds at the moment, especially as the 15 January deadline is looming within the next 24 hours. What will happen to gas prices? They are tied to world oil prices. I hope that it does not happen, and I am sure that many hon. Members share that wish, but if war breaks out in the Gulf there could be a massive increase in gas prices within a few weeks. I hope that that is not the case, but we are vulnerable to that.
What will happen in seven or eight years' time when the gas in the Caister field has run out? Where will these two gas turbines be supplied from, and at what cost to the consumer?
Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Caister field supplying National Power's plant at Killingholme. Is he not aware that the gas in that field is off-spec—that it has a very high nitrogen content and cannot be used in normal British Gas conditions for the purposes of the domestic consumer? The gas is not coming out of the reserve for domestic consumption; it is highly specialised and its use in a power station is probably the best possible.
Mr. Barron: I do not deny that, but, according to press reports, seven or eight years' gas supply is going into those generators. Let me repeat my question: what will happen when that is gone? The question will have to be answered at some stage, preferably by the Minister.
Mr. Eadie: The question of gas importation is important. We know that, when British Gas appeared before the energy studies group, it said that it planned to have 8 to 10 GW of power station generation, basing its projection on the expectation that much of the gas would come from the Soviet Union.
As my hon. Friend has suggested, since we last discussed the Bill the position has changed dramatically. If a Gulf war breaks out, the Soviet Union will be in a powerful position in energy terms: not only will it have all that gas, but it will be the largest oil producer in Europe. The House should give some consideration to our indigenous energy sources.
Mr. Barron: Given his years of service as both an energy Minister and an Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend knows the position even better than I do. He served in the Government at the time of the oil price increases in the 1970s. We have not yet discussed all the outside influences on our national energy resources.
Other European utilities—although there is still talk of building combined-cycle gas power stations—will, they say, use gas only for peak-load operation; there is no plan for a major, irrreversible shift to gas burners. The number of permissions apparently granted by the Department of Energy leads us to believe that it will take such action. We have not been told, however, whether the two power stations will operate the base-load system, thus using much more gas than peak-load operation would require—meeting two or three hours' demand per day, sometimes only in the late winter.
The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) mentioned the 1972 Act. That is indeed relevant, but I should point out that we are talking not about going from 4,000 to 2,000 MW, but about going from nought to 2,000. The people with whom I negotiated as a trade unionist before I entered the House would have loved that sort of logic: "You have won half of it anyway; you are giving away 2,000 MW." That is the way in which we should look at the position, although the other way may seem a nice mathematical method of arguing for gas generation.
Mr. Moss: As has been said many times, the hon. Gentleman is understood to support a national energy policy, controlled and planned from the centre. Has it not occurred to him that in 1972, when the application for the 4,000 MW oil-fired station was first put in, the planning had been carried out with the CEGB—perhaps by a Labour Government in 1970 or before—but the power station was never built? Why should a wonderful national energy policy plan a 4,000 MW station that is never built? So much for a national energy policy in the Labour party.
Mr. Barron: If we are to answer such questions, we should perhaps consider what happened in the middle east in 1973. We have still not learnt the lessons.
Mr. Allen McKay: The planning for the 1972 project took into consideration the then state of manufacturing industry and the accompanying need for energy resources. With the collapse of manufacturing industry since 1979, the position is different.
Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is entirely right.
It can be argued that a form of national power and electricity generation has operated, on and off, for a number of years. It can also be argued that most Governments, whatever their political colour, have tended to get it wrong, which is why it has been in a mess for more than 20 years. That does not mean, however, that we should not think things out before producing spatchcock measures to build generation plants. We should stop making the mistakes that we have made in the past; we should take a more national and strategic approach.
The country already faces a deficit in the energy balance of payments. In the first 10 months of 1990, Britain had a fuel trade deficit amounting to the equivalent of the cost of 2·2 million tonnes of coal. We live in an energy-rich country. How much larger can we afford to allow that deficit to become—not just in the short term, but permanently? We should not consider the cost of building the generators in relation to seven or eight years' supply from a particular field in the southern North sea; we should bear it in mind that in 10 years' time, when we still want to use the generators, we may be having to import our supply. That, in the end, is the real cost, not to the company but to the nation.
The increased use of gas for electricity generation will also have an impact on its price. At present, gas prices are relatively low. All the indications are that, if gas is diverted to electricity generation, the price will rise dramatically, and that will have an impact on both domestic gas and domestic electricity users, as well as on the generators themselves.
Gas is still a premium fuel and to burn it to produce electricity is a wasteful use of such a resource. Before enabling the two major generating companies to build gas turbine generators, the House should consider these important questions. Once again, a private Bill is being used to determine major strategic energy decisions which should be made by the Department of Energy and by the Ministers involved, regardless of their political colour. We have said all along, and will continue to say, that we want the matter to be debated in a proper fashion. We hope that, at some stage, the Government will find the time and the courage to do that, rather than adopting the spatchcock option of private Bills.
8.18 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: First, I take up the final point made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). We must get this right: the Bill is before the House only because last year the Government gave their approval first to PowerGen and then to National Power for the power stations to be built. Opposition Members should recognise that the power stations are being built at this very minute, and that one will be completed within months, if not weeks.
Mr. Knapman: Let us suppose, briefly, that every word uttered by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was correct. Would not the result of the Opposition's proposals be the denial to most power stations of the intake and outlet pipes that they obviously need?
Mr. Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his clarification of very difficult technical details when he opened the debate. I believe that it is wrong for the motives
684
of any hon. Member to be questioned when we are considering a private Bill. Every hon. Member present in the Chamber has a constituency reason for wanting to discuss the revival motion. Furthermore, all my hon. Friends have an interest in energy, which goes back to their membership of the Select Committee on Energy. My hon. Friends should be commended by my constituents for taking such an interest in our national energy industry. They should not be criticised and carped at by Opposition Members.
On 26 February 1986, nearly five years ago, I said to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were in the Chair at the time, that the CEGB planned, through its local agency Nirex, to dump nuclear waste in my constituency. I said to you that so long as I was Member of Parliament for Brigg and Cleethorpes that would not happen, and it did not happen. Only because that battle was won is my constituency in the fortunate position of having not a nuclear waste dump but two power stations, one being built by National Power and the other by PowerGen. In 1987 my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) had the good sense to abandon the ridiculous proposal to dump nuclear waste in my constituency. Having won that battle, we now have two private enterprise power stations being built, one of which is nearly completed.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud in his intervention, what would be the effect if Opposition Members were successful in their opposition to the revival motion or if they successfully opposed the Bill on Second or Third Reading? The effect would be that the Labour party would say to the public, "Two power stations in Michael Brown's parliamentary constituency of Brigg and Cleethorpes will be completed by the time of the next general election, and we are proud to tell the people of the United Kingdom that we shall play our part in preventing those power stations from coming into operation." I shall remind the parliamentary Labour candidate in my constituency, Ian Cawsey, who will have to live with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley, that he has had yet another millstone strung around his neck. It was bad enough when the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that if the Labour party won the next election it would abandon the Immingham docks project. Now it wants to kill the jobs at Killingholme after the power stations have been built.
Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman said that last year planning permission for the two power stations was granted by the Department of Energy without debate. I believe that that was wrong. Would the hon. Gentleman set about building a four-bedroomed detached house without planning permission?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy gave National Power and PowerGen permission to build the power stations, subject to their obtaining planning permission. National Power and PowerGen went to Glanford borough council and Humberside county council and said, "The Secretary of State for Energy has allowed us to bring this project to you. Will you give us planning permission?" As it is a very go-ahead planning authority, Glanford borough council gave planning permission. There was no objection. I do not think that even a whisper against planning permission being granted

685
came from the two Labour councillors out of a total of 42 councillors. I believe that they voted for the project. The Labour-controlled Humberside county council—I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) is present as his brother is the leader of the Conservative group on that council—also gave planning permission for the stations. The hon. Member for Rother Valley says that no planning permission was given. Both Glanford borough council and Humberside county council could have told the Secretary of State for Energy where to go after giving approval for the two power stations by denying planning permission, after which there would have had to be an appeal. However, they gave planning permission.
Mr. Barron: Is not planning permission being sought by means of the Bill?
Mr. Brown: Planning permission for the power stations is not the subject of the Bill. The power stations are being built after planning permission was granted by Glanford borough council. One of the power stations will be completed later this year. Planning permission was given for it. The Bill merely enables the power stations to take water out of the river Humber for cooling purposes.
I cannot believe what I am hearing from the Opposition —though perhaps I should, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Labour party believes only in coal, regardless of its price and of how expensive it is for the consumer. The Labour party believes that when the housewife switches on the electric light she ought to pay the price of electricity generated by coal, however high that price may be. That is what the debate is about. The hon. Member for Rother Valley let the cat out of the bag when he said, in effect, "I don't care whether you build nuclear, oil-fired or gas-fired power stations—all I want is for the consumer in this country to be forced to buy electricity at whatever price the coal miner and the coal industry choose to foist upon him."
Mr. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman misleads the House by suggesting that the Labour party wants electricity to be generated by coal, regardless of other means of electricity generation, but alternative means of electricity generation would deprive my constituents of employment.
Mr. Brown: When it comes to any other product, where constituency interests are not involved, competition and price are the determining factors. If the hon. Gentleman had the misfortune, in his case—though the good fortune in my case—to represent a constituency in which the largest single industry was privately run and where there was competition, he would find that Scunthorpe's steel industry had to face both international and domestic competition and therefore had to become efficient. At the moment the hon. Gentleman has the good fortune to represent a constituency where the largest industry has a monopoly. He wants that monopoly to be maintained, but by defending and upholding that monopoly he does his constituents a disservice in the long run. If there is a mix of energy generation, with one fossil fuel having to compete with another, the coal industry will be able to defend itself far more effectively in the long run, and it will be much more commercially competitive.
Combined cycle gas turbine stations are cheaper and quicker to build than conventional coal-fired stations and are substantially more efficient. Gas is available at an
686
economically competitive price, and as these companies must now answer to a board of directors and to shareholders they would not be building these power stations if they were going to be inefficient or, ultimately, if there was not an opportunity to sell electricity at a cheaper rate.
Gas is in plentiful supply and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, has considerable environmental advantages over coal. When gas is burned in a combined cycle gas turbine station, about half the carbon dioxide, virtually no sulphur dioxide and a quarter of the nitrogen oxide emissions of a coal-fired station are produced. Therefore, on environmental grounds, my constituency will be at the forefront of producing cheap energy, with an environmental benefit to boot.
Mr. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the reduced environmental impact of gas-fired power stations. If that is correct, why did he oppose nuclear power, which has no environmental impact whatever?
Mr. Brown: In 1945, a couple of miles up the road from where I have lived for the past 12 years, 700 acres of land were purchased by the CEGB. The intention was always to use that land for a power station. In 1972, the House went so far as to pass a private Bill giving the CEGB permission to build a power station there. In the 1980s, I said to my constituents, "I oppose this area of land, on which a power station was to be built, being used as a nuclear dump." I also said that if we prevented it being used as a nuclear dump we would have to acknowledge that a power station was to be built on the site. On that basis, I give my full and total support to the Bill. The project will bring jobs to my constituency.
For some reason, the Labour party has got it in for my constituency. It does not like my constituents to have jobs or for them to benefit from reductions in unemployment. Whether it is power plants, port development or whatever, the Labour party does not like any development in my constituency. At the next election, the poor prospective Labour candidate will have a hard time trying to convince my voters that they should vote for him. They certainly will not do so because it would result in my constituency going back to the 17th century. I support the motion and compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on the way in which he introduced it.
8.32 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I am a north-west Member of Parliament, but I am here to support the north-east.
I am pro-nuclear and declare an interest in that respect. I am not crying because the next power station will be driven by a gas turbine, and I am not unfair enough to say that these power stations should not have their cooling water. I wish to say something to the coal-mining interests in the House, because that is what many of the earlier speeches were about. As part of the commitment to British Coal, National Power is retrofitting flue gas desulphurisation plant at Drax power station in Yorkshire. Similarly, PowerGen has submitted consent applications for retrofitting at Ratcliffe on Soar in Nottingham and Ferrybridge C power station in Yorkshire. The availability of FGD plant at some of our coal-fired power stations will reduce the disadvantage of the relatively high sulphur content of British coal.

687
It appears that those two companies are committed to the coal industry, but technology has not been developed sufficiently for orders to be placed immediately for coal-fired power stations. We must get that technology right and therefore—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not see that this has anything to do with the motion.
Mr. Dickens: If you had been in the Chamber earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would have heard speech after speech on the coal industry and the effect that the motion will have on it. Following your direction, I shall leave that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) moved the motion well on behalf of National Power and PowerGen. The successor companies to the CEGB have almost completed the two power stations, but a water supply is required to cool them.
In the combined cycle gas turbine, gas is burned in gas turbines and the exhaust heat is used to heat steam to drive a steam turbine. The gas turbines and the steam turbine drive electrical generators. Steam from the turbine gives up its heat energy in the turbine as it expands and its temperature and pressure fall. When as much energy as practicable has been extracted from the steam, it is exhausted at low temperature and the pressure goes directly to a condenser. Cold water, in this case from the river Humber, is passed through the condenser and is used to condense the steam. The water produced is recirculated to the steam boiler and at all times is kept separate from the river water.
Whatever the form of power, whether it was coal fired, oil fired, gas fired or nuclear, it would still have to have cooling facilities. The short pipes into the river Humber would still be necessary. There will be no pollution. It is interesting to note that gas is cleaner than coal. The burning of gas produces no sulphur dioxide, which is a big advantage. A gas-fired power station emits a quarter of the nitrogen oxide and half the carbon dioxide of a coal-fired station. That is the advantage of the two power stations that are nearly completed.
It is important to recall that British Coal stands to gain long contracts from both those power giants. They are committed to the existing contracts until March 1993, and they will negotiate other contracts after March 1993 as long as British Coal produces coal at competitive rates. The way that British Coal is going at the moment, it has every chance of securing those contracts. Its performance is outstanding and I think that it is even surprising itself. [Interruption.] I have been passed a note telling me to speak for two hours. It does not really say that.
Mr. Buckley: Is the hon. Gentleman generating gas? This is known as the biggest gas house in the United Kingdom. By speaking for two hours, the hon. Gentleman would contribute to the supply.
Mr. Dickens: I may be speaking hot air, but these two power stations are very important to the people of the north-east, and especially Humberside.
We must remember that a power station must be justified. PowerGen and National Power, the successor companies to the CEGB, would not have forged ahead if the power stations had not been justified. It is a new world
688
now. The power stations must be competitive and the type of generation of power used must be justified. It will not matter if the power stations overproduce because the electricity companies have a statutory obligation to provide power on demand to industry and consumers to keep the lights burning. That was the will of Parliament. The companies have a duty to fulfil that obligation. To do so, they must make sure that power stations are built.
If there is any surplus, it can be fed into the national grid and used elsewhere. The climate in the north-east is more kind at times than it is perhaps in the north-west and the south. Vice-versa, the north-east can take advantage of the power fed into the national grid from other stations. The arrangement is sensible and the power stations are justified. It would be churlish of the Opposition to block the almost completed power stations for the sake of short intake and outlet water pipes to the river Humber. We have heard that there is no pollution involved. The water is kept absolutely separate. I cannot understand the position of Opposition Members, many of whom I have supported on other issues.
I was formerly commercial director of a coal-fired power station and the chairman of an oil company. I am now in the nuclear industry—an interest which I declared earlier. That is why I take such an interest in energy matters and why I have come here tonight to support the people of the north-east and allow them to have the power station which they so richly deserve and need. On that note, I hand over to other hon. Members who wish to speak.
8.41 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: We need to go back to basics in discussing this revival motion. It is obvious from the speeches made by Opposition Members that they have not read the Bill. Nowhere does it mention planning permission or the type of power station. It is simply a Bill to change the wording of the 1972 Act which prescribes pipes of a certain length to the Humber. The Bill simply seeks to replace that length of pipe with shorter pipes to supply the cooling water to the gas generators.
Several points were raised by Opposition Members. The environment and clean coal were mentioned. Hon. Members may be interested in some of the figures on the so-called environmental benefits. Existing coal-burning stations, with 38 per cent. efficiency, pump 125 per cent. more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than a combined cycle gas turbine plant—the type proposed at Killingholme—which has a 50 per cent. efficiency burn and only a 100 per cent. output of carbon dioxide.
The so-called benefits of flue gas desulphurisation have been mentioned. Drax, a 4,000 MW power station, will produce 1·1 million tonnes of gypsum. It needs 0·7 million tonnes of limestone for the process. The limestone comes from Derbyshire and 0·7 million tonnes of it represents about 35,000 lorries with a 20-tonne load crossing from Derbyshire to Drax. That is 673 a week or about 96 a day. If Labour Members believe that those are the benefits of flue gas desulphurisation, I suggest that they examine the problem a little more closely.
The Bill is simple. It is about changing the wording of the 1972 Act to allow new pipes to take in water. The power stations have planning permission. There is no local

689
opposition to them and, in the case of the PowerGen site, work has already started. We should vote for the revival motion without further ado.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 61.

Division No. 35]

[8.44 pm

AYES

Arbuthnot, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hunter, Andrew

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Irvine, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Jack, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Janman, Tim

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Jessel, Toby

Boswell, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Bottomley, Peter

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Bowis, John

Kirkhope, Timothy

Brazier, Julian

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Butler, Chris

Knox, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Lawrence, Ivan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Carttiss, Michael

Maclean, David

Cash, William

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Mans, Keith

Chapman, Sydney

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

Mills, Iain

Monro, Sir Hector

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Colvin, Michael

Morrison, Sir Charles

Conway, Derek

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Nicholls, Patrick

Cormack, Patrick

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

Norris, Steve

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Page, Richard

Dickens, Geoffrey

Paice, James

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Patnick, Irvine

Durant, Sir Anthony

Porter, David (Waveney)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Fallon, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Speed, Keith

Forman, Nigel

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Fox, Sir Marcus

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Franks, Cecil

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Fry, Peter

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Gale, Roger

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Thorne, Neil

Goodlad, Alastair

Thurnham, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Viggers, Peter

Hague, William

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Wheeler, Sir John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Widdecombe, Ann

Hampson, Dr Keith

Wiggin, Jerry

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Yeo, Tim

Harris, David

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Mr. Malcolm Moss and

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Mr. Michael Brown.

690

NOES

Allen, Graham

Haynes, Frank

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hood, Jimmy

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Hoyle, Doug

Barron, Kevin

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Bellotti, David

Ingram, Adam

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

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Bermingham, Gerald

Kennedy, Charles

Blunkett, David

Leadbitter, Ted

Buckley, George J.

McAvoy, Thomas

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

McCartney, Ian

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Clay, Bob

Maxton, John

Clelland, David

Meale, Alan

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Michael, Alun

Cousins, Jim

Morgan, Rhodri

Crowther, Stan

Murphy, Paul

Cryer, Bob

Patchett, Terry

Cummings, John

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Redmond, Martin

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Rooney, Terence

Dixon, Don

Short, Clare

Dobson, Frank

Skinner, Dennis

Eadie, Alexander

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Spearing, Nigel

Fatchett, Derek

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Fisher, Mark

Turner, Dennis

Foster, Derek

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Foulkes, George

Wigley, Dafydd

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Tellers for the Noes:

Grocott, Bruce

Ms. Dawn Primarolo and

Hardy, Peter

Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That, since no Petitions remain against the Bill, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Overseas Development and Co-operation
8.56 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft International Development Association (Ninth Replenishment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we debate with this the motion on the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1990.
Mrs. Chalker: The purpose of the first of these orders is to authorise a contribution of £619 million to the ninth replenishment of the International Development Association, known as IDA. This is the second biggest single commitment from our aid programme after our contribution to the seventh European development fund. We have a high regard for the World bank, of which IDA is a part. It plays a key role in the development process and the United Kingdom has been a firm supporter of IDA since its inception. IDA is by far the world's biggest provider of concessionary finance to developing countries. In the year to June 1990 IDA lending totalled !5·5 billion and in the same period the World bank approved loans totalling just over !15 billion.
IDA was set up in 1960 when it became clear that many countries were too poor to take on conventional World bank loans, which are on quasi-commercial terms. Because IDA terms are highly concessional, it is funded mainly by donors' contributions and not, as with the World bank, by borrowing on the financial markets. But IDA reflows—repayments of earlier loans that go back into the pot to help finance new ones—are becoming an increasingly important supplementary source of funds.
The World bank's goal is to promote economic progress among its borrowers so that they are fully able to turn to the world's financial markets to meet their needs. IDA, in turn, aims to bring its borrowers to the point where their needs can be met by the bank. Many countries have benefited in this way over the years. Former recipients that have graduated out of IDA as their economies have strengthened include Korea, Turkey, Thailand and Ecuador. However, most of the poorest countries of Africa and Asia continue to need substantial and highly concessional aid flows for many years to come. IDA has a key role to play in their development.
IDA resources are also significant for so-called "blend" countries that receive a mix of World bank loans on normal and concessional terms. Such countries include India, Pakistan, China and Nigeria.
Our aid programme is targeted to help achieve sustainable economic and social progress, especially in the poorest countries. Channelling funds through IDA, in collaboration with other donors, is an effective mechanism to advance that policy. At the same time, our substantial and effective bilateral aid programme is focused on the poorest countries. Thus, the funds channelled bilaterally and through IDA are mutually supportive of our central policy objectives.
IDA loans are used mostly for specific projects or programmes within individual countries. In recent years, however, a proportion of IDA resources has been used for non-project lending, mainly structural and sectoral
692
adjustment loans. Adjustment lending of this kind provides vital foreign exchange to help finance essential imports needed to implement economic reform programmes agreed with the international donor community. As the process of adjustment proceeds, we should see a decline in the need to use concessional aid for general balance of payments support. The need will continue, of course, for sector investment and project lending to help sustain the growth that reform programmes are aiming to achieve. Up to 30 per cent. of IDA9 resources may be used for non-project lending, but the impact of the Gulf crisis will almost certainly intensify the need for adjustment efforts in many developing countries.
Our new obligation to IDA is set out fully in the White Paper, CM 1325, but it may be helpful if I comment briefly on the main features. The size and terms of such replenishments are determined through intergovernmental negotiation among interested donor countries. A total of 11·7 billion special drawing rights—about !15 billion—was agreed. Adding in the recycling of repayments on earlier loans, IDA should be able to achieve a lending programme of more than !17 billion over the three years of the replenishment. That is a much better result than we thought possible at the outset and represents a real increase over IDA8. The United Kingdom will contribute 6·7 per cent. of this total—the same share as last time. At the agreed rate of exchange, that means a United Kingdom contribution of £619 million.
We shall pay this sum to IDA by depositing three promissory notes, for equal amounts, over three years from 1990. Those will then be encashed over a longer period, to match spending incurred by IDA as a result of its commitments during the replenishment period. The costs of encashment will be met as they occur, from sums voted for overseas aid.
During the negotiations donors reviewed several policy issues. They underlined the importance of poverty reduction as IDA's central concern, and agreed that greater emphasis should be given to people and their environment. We warmly welcome this. Development will not happen if people remain uneducated and unhealthy and with insufficient access to resources. Development will not be sustainable if we do not take steps to protect our environment. The United Kingdom laid special emphasis on those issues during the negotiations and took the lead in urging the bank to do more to help with the revised tropical forestry action plan. I am also particularly pleased that more attention is to be devoted to trying to bring down the rate of population growth: a better life for all is just not possible if economic growth is outstripped by the growth in population. The prospects for sustainable development are greatly diminished when over-population leads, as it so often does, to environmental degradation.
Donors were also insistent that IDA resources must be used effectively, and that country performance should be an increasingly important factor. Again, we welcome that emphasis. We, the lenders, need to ask whether Government or public institutions are properly addressing the country's needs. Sound economic management, broadly based development, including the reduction of poverty and real efforts towards sustainable long-term developments, are all critical—in other words, good, effective government.
Many donors are above all concerned that IDA resources should be directed towards the poorest countries, particularly in Africa. In IDA8, it was agreed

693
that up to 50 per cent. of the replenishment should go to Africa. The same share will be kept for IDA9, which I welcome. We are pleased that the needs of the large developing countries in Asia have also been recognised, but it is Africa which continues to face exceptional difficulties. The recurrence of the threat of widespread famine is but one facet of that.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said in a news release that I received today, the Gulf crisis is not hindering our famine relief efforts in Africa. Every time that Saddam Hussein refuses to withdraw from Kuwait, developing countries dependent on oil and facing increased oil prices are affected. However, I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that we are ready and prepared, and have made provision to maintain our relief programmes without interruption, come what may in the Gulf. That is extremely important.
Another difficulty is the need for economic reform and adjustment in Africa—a fact which is recognised by an increasing number of countries on the continent. The World bank has taken the lead in providing balance of payments assistance for countries prepared to adopt the necessary policy reforms. We strongly support those reform programmes and we have provided funds on grant terms from our bilateral aid programme to supplement IDA resources in such cases. Indeed, the United Kingdom is at the forefront of international efforts to increase resources available to support economic reform in the low-income, debt-distressed countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Under the first stage of the special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa donors pledged a total of !6·3 billion of aid in addition to the finance available from the World bank and the IMF. That special programme is a World bank-led effort to ensure well co-ordinated financial support for the import requirements of economic reform programmes. For our part, we pledged up to £250 million of British bilateral programme aid over the three years of the special programme; that pledge has been fulfilled. A second three-year phase of the special programme has now been agreed and I am aiming to make available at least the same amount of bilateral support.
Measures have also been adopted—the "Toronto terms"—to ease the burden of debt on the poorest countries, mainly in Africa, undertaking economic adjustment. Those measures were first proposed by the United Kingdom. Nineteen countries have already benefited. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, while he was Chancellor, proposed ways of further easing the burden—the "Trinidad proposals". Those would involve a reduction of two thirds—!18 billion—in the stock of debt of the poorest countries. We are now seeking to persuade other creditor countries to accept those proposals.
I referred earlier to the effects of the Gulf crisis, which for most developing countries are severe. Apart from the increase in oil prices, many of those countries are suffering in other ways, notably from the loss of remittances from expatriate workers, plus the problems of reabsorbing those workers into their home economies. Many IDA recipients are seriously affected and will require extra help in this financial year, and beyond. Some countries with average incomes just above the normal upper limit for IDA are amongst those worst hit, and the bank hopes to be able to offer some IDA assistance to several of those latter countries, too. Indeed, it is because the bank is anxious to start helping as soon as possible, and because our
694
agreement to contribute is expected to trigger IDA9's effectiveness, enabling the replenishment to be committed, that we are having this debate rather earlier than has tended to be the case in the past.
The extra assistance will come from a variety of sources, mainly by accelerated use of donor commitments both to IDA9 and to earlier replenishments that are not fully paid up and by voluntary contributions from donors. We expect to be able to help the former. We fully support IDA's central aim of alleviating poverty and its concentration of resources in key areas, especially in agricultural and rural development and in energy.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend tell us something about how we are responding to the famine in Ethiopia and Sudan and the extent to which the programme that she has identified and on which I congratulate her—she has done a tremendous job—will help to alleviate the immediate problem which is receiving so much attention in our press and elsewhere in the world?
Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. He will know that on 19 December I made a statement to the House announcing an extra £5 million for Ethiopia and Sudan on top of the £56 million spent in 1989 and in 1990 up to that date. I shall visit Ethiopia, all being well, at the end of this month to make a further assessment and to hold discussions with the Government and the relief organisations so that we can work out what further help may be necessary.
Unfortunately, because of the situation in Sudan it will not be possible for me to visit it, but I am in close touch with the non-governmental organisations, which are continuing, despite the pressures that they are under, to do such magnificent work there. We are receiving regular feedback of information on which we shall base future decisions. It will be very much harder to help Sudan, for the awful reason that its Government will not admit to the crisis or to the extent of the famine, and it is possible that they will not allow the food to go to the people who are starving.
As for Ethiopia, I can tell the House today that what was only a hope on 19 December has come to pass, and Massawa port has been opened. The first United Nations shipload of food has gone from Djibouti to that port and has been checked by both sides—by the Ethiopian Government and by the liberation forces. The food is now on its way to Eritrea. We hope that that project will continue well. The southern line is still being used, with food going in from the port of Assab up to Dese and being offloaded on to World Food Programme and other voluntary organisations' lorries to go to northern Wollo and Tigray. The airlift into Asmara has been working and I have put aside more money for it.
Unfortunately, it has been reported to us in the past couple of days that the airport at Asmara has been shelled by the Eritrean People's Liberation Front. We sincerely hope that the shelling will cease and that we shall continue to be able to use Asmara for the airlift at least for the rest of this month, until the running of the boat from Djibouti to Massawa port provides a regular flow of food into Eritrea and northern Tigray. I trust that that brings my hon. Friend up to date—
Sir David Steel: May I press the Minister while she is still on this important topic? Can she give the House any information on what is happening in Somalia, given the chaos there?
Mrs. Chalker: Somalia is a very sad case. Sad to say, we have had to withdraw our staff and advise aid agencies to withdraw, too. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman up-to-date information at this moment. There is food in the country, but it is bound to run out because while fighting is going on it will not be possible to get it from the point of entry to where the people need it. I am glad to say that our ambassador arrived back in this country safely today; when I have had a chance to talk to him later this week I shall try to put down on paper for the right hon. Gentleman what is happening in Somalia.
I welcome comments made by right hon. and hon. Members about the problems of Africa, because IDA9 will be much concerned with the needs of Africa. One of the critical aspects of the International Development Association is its central aim of alleviating poverty. I am delighted that it is concentrating its resources in key areas such as agriculture, rural development and energy. It is making welcome efforts to tackle the problems of the poorest and especially the poorer, indebted African countries. We also welcome the IDA's role in improving the co-ordination of aid from all sources.
The second order for which we seek parliamentary approval relates to a much smaller but none the less important exclusively regional institution. The purpose of the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1990 is to provide for an additional subscription not exceeding US !20·9 million to the capital stock of that bank. Britain and Canada were the two non-regional founding members of the CDB and are the largest non-regional shareholders, with 10·44 per cent. each. Over the years we have given the CDB strong support, providing encouragement and guidance as well as technical and financial assistance.
The bank was set up in 1970 to promote economic and social growth in the Caribbean region. There is a hard lending window through which the bank borrows on the international financial markets on the security of capital stock. There is also a soft fund, a special development fund, whose resources are lent on concessional terms mainly to the poorer countries in the region or to those with special difficulties. At its last annual meeting in May the board of governors approved a capital increase of US !200 million of which !40 million will be paid in. The United Kingdom share is the 10·44 per cent. that I mentioned, or US !20·9 million. Of that sum, US !4·2 million will be paid in, equivalent to £2·2 million at the current rate of exchange. Payments will be phased over a number of years.
The CDB is one of the leading regional institutions in the Commonwealth Caribbean. It operates almost entirely with personnel drawn from the region and provides the focus for encouragement and retention of local skills. Its small size and restricted membership and the great disparity in wealth between its borrowing members impose constraints on its operations. We have encouraged the bank's management to improve the efficiency of its operations and not attempt too much. Last year the World bank approved a loan to the CDB for on-lending to smaller Caribbean countries. The World bank's assessment was that, although the CDB has made considerable
696
progress in strengthening its operational and organisational procedures, some institutional weaknesses remained. Therefore, the World bank loan has a strong institution building emphasis which we welcome.
The World bank is the leading development institution and it is at the cutting edge of change for improvement in the social and economic conditions in developing countries. Successive British Governments have supported the World bank group, which includes the International Development Association, and our commitment is as firm as ever. The CDB also plays a valuable role in its region.
I commend both orders authorising additional contributions to these institutions.
9.18 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As the Minister says, the World bank may be a leading development institution, but unfortunately it has an appalling record of funding disastrous projects and of forcing developing countries to restructure their economies so that they have to use their resources to pay their debt. It is focused on economic growth and not on people and the quality of their lives. Recently there have been signs of change. Last year, in its first report on poverty in 10 years, it recommended strategies to alleviate poverty.
The bank also appears to be developing an environmental consciousness. Both the IMF and the World bank have begun talking about taking into account how well Governments serve their people, rather than just the creditors, and are looking at—and frowning on—excessive military expenditure. These changes should be welcomed and encouraged, but we have heard words about the poor from the bank before, and nothing has changed.
Will there be a genuine shift this time? What will the Government do to monitor future bank lending? How do they propose that the bank should implement its new poverty focus? The Government have adopted a passive and complacent role, supporting both United States and World bank ideology. They have defended the bank's record, but with little debate on the issues involved. In what direction do the Government think that the bank should be going? What position was put forward by the United Kingdom executive director in recent debates on bank policy?
The three priority areas identified for IDA9 are poverty reduction, support for sound economic policies and the environment. Have the Government reviewed past policies and recommended changes for the future? How does United Kingdom aid policy fit in with the new bank priorities? What changes in policy are the Government planning? What factors determine the level of United Kingdom contribution to IDA9 and the decision not to make supplementary contributions? The answer seems to be that, as usual, the Overseas Development Administration is muddling along with no clear policy or decisions, supporting a bit of everything. The Government's attitude to the world development report on poverty provides a clear example. The two-pronged strategy for the poor—labour-intensive growth combined with investment in health and education and a safety net for the poorest—marks a significant and important change in World bank thinking, and should be welcomed.
Like the ODA, the bank has focused on structural adjustment, earning foreign exchange and paying debts to

697
the exclusion of all else. The newly announced policies should be welcomed as a significant change. Then, every ounce of political pressure must be put into ensuring that the new policies are translated into actions, and reforming United Kingdom bilateral policies to the same end. Unfortunately, the Government have hardly acknowledged the shift by the bank. Far from pledging that the United Kingdom will now focus on poverty alleviation strategies, the Minister conveniently gives the impression that all is in hand, that no change is needed, and that we can sit back and do nothing new.
Can the Minister, in all honesty, be so complacent? We are talking about whether 300 million people can climb out of poverty by the year 2000. We are talking about the lives or deaths of millions of children. We are talking about whether Governments in the north and south will take these extra steps and make these extra efforts for the quarter of the world's population living in poverty. Why does the Minister continue to give anodyne answers about all aid and growth benefiting the poor? She should admit instead that the bank and the ODA were wrong. Growth simply does not trickle down to the poorest. Structural adjustment in the 1980s has not solved the economic crisis. More than 1 billion people live in dire poverty and it is time to focus our best efforts on them.
What is needed in the 1990s is economic adjustment which redirects resources to the poor and invests in people, along with large flows of concessional funds, debt reduction and better trade. The recommendation that a Government's commitment to poverty reduction be one of the main performance criteria deciding the allocation of IDA resources has major implications. Just how much weight will be given to this?
The Labour party would be delighted to see international funds focused on Governments with a genuine commitment to helping their citizens. Are the Government willing to back up that policy? Perhaps the Government will tell us whether United Kingdom aid policy will change in line with the bank's new thinking. I understand that the bank has issued a handbook on implementing the new poverty emphasis. I wonder whether it has been issued to the staff of the Overseas Development Administration.
The bank projects that the number of people living in poverty in Africa could increase by up to 100 million. It notes that with an extraordinary effort by donors and Governments that increase could be avoided. The bank's report on Africa in October 1989 entitled, "From Crisis to Sustainable Growth", laid out a strategic agenda for donors and Governments and called for a doubling of spending on the development of human resources. It called the target of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. annual growth in Africa "ambitious but achievable" if donors increase aid by 4 per cent. per year in real terms to reach !22 billion at today's prices by the year 2000. Can the Minister explain how, with an aid budget planned to stagnate in real terms, the United Kingdom will play its part?
The report on sub-Saharan Africa was not a one-off shot in the dark. The conference, which was organised by the Dutch Government, began by building a consensus around the report. Who represented the United Kingdom at that conference and what views did they contribute? Are the Government supporting the movement for a new global coalition or are they, as I suspect, dragging their feet?
698
The special needs of Africa for concessional flows have been recognised by the bank in the form of a special programme of assistance. There is now agreement that Africa needs more aid and more debt relief, but what is being done to secure it? The bank is funding a debt reduction facility to buy up the commercial debt of the poorest countries. Those are the IDA-only countries. The overhang of commercial debt is small but weighty because it inhibits new private investment and trade. Removing it is relatively easy, but vital. Just as damaging is the debt owed to the multilateral institutions. Sub-Saharan Africa owes more than !20 billion to the World bank and last year it handed over !1·5 billion in debt servicing. How can the bank possibly promote labour-intensive growth strategies and investment in the poor when the money that it puts in comes straight out in debt repayment?
Sub-Saharan Africa owes !20 billion to the IDA and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The new policies being promoted in Washington cannot be realised until the contradiction is resolved; yet we have heard little from the Government about reducing multilateral debt. Debt undermines everything else. Bank loans still stress the importance of exports to earn foreign exchange to pay for debt servicing. Export promotion often means huge capital-intensive and energy-intensive projects. That means less money for investing in the poor, and more huge dams and power stations which displace people and destroy the environment.
The Minister implies that the United Kingdom is active in the World bank but prefers to keep quiet about the powerful muscles that are stretched behind the scenes. If the United Kingdom has been willing to stand up to the bank, how is it that millions of dollars have been spent on projects which have left hundreds of thousands of people homeless and decimated so many acres of agricultural land?
Why is it that the Sardar Sarovar dam in India is still going ahead after five years of bitter controversy? Total World bank funding is !450 million, of which !250 million is from the IDA. The project will submerge 13,744 hectares of forest and 11,318 hectares of valuable agricultural land. Ninety thousand people will be displaced—yet, six years into the project, no adequate resettlement plans exist. Crucial environmental studies were not undertaken at the beginning, and World bank policy on involuntary settlement has been broken. Even basic information about the project was kept from those threatened by the dam. Thousands of "oustees" have made peaceful demonstrations, and Indian non-governmental organisations have adopted a policy of peaceful non-co-operation, calling for the project to be scrapped. Several Indian Government officials now agree that the plans should be reviewed. Members of parliaments all around the world have called on the bank to cancel the project.
The World bank responded by sending more missions and by laying conditions on the Indian Government, but in most cases it has acted too late, or has ignored the recommendations of its own staff to suspend the loan. In July 1990, credit was extended for a further year on condition that satisfactory progress was made with its conditions for improved resettlement plans. However, land has still not been found to resettle 90,000 people.
Can the Minister explain why that disastrous loan has not been suspended? Of course developing countries need energy to develop their economies, and it would be wrong

699
to block projects which can benefit the poor because we in the northern hemisphere have abused the environment and are not prepared ourselves to end harmful practices. However, the projects in question do nothing to help the poor, but devastate their lives instead.
There is an alternative to that madness. Mega-disasters such as Sardar Sarovar need never have happened if the World bank had considered energy conservation properly. Research in America by the Environmental Defence Fund shows that if, instead of investing !1·5 billion in Sardar Sarovar, a smaller investment had been made in conservation measures—including high-efficiency motors and fluorescent lighting—that would have produced three times as much electricity. However, it is clear from World bank appraisals of that project that energy and irrigation alternatives were not adequately reviewed.
What are the irrigation alternatives? Of 246 large-scale projects begun in India since 1951, 181 are still incomplete. Some are World bank projects. Instead of sinking funds into new dams, why does the bank not review incomplete projects and finish those which are environmentally and socially sound? At the same time, the bank would do well to switch to small-scale irrigation projects which directly serve and involve local communities. Sardar Sarovar is just one example. Throughout the world, 70 projects funded by the World bank, and many IDA-funded projects, are displacing 1·5 million people; yet the bank cannot document one case in which a displaced population is not worse off than before.
Energy sector lending has become the World bank's biggest sector in recent years, accounting for up to one fifth of all loans. However, only 3 per cent. of energy and industrial sector lending has gone into inducing energy efficiency improvements in the past 10 years. In India, not one dollar of the !8·5 billion spent on the energy sector has gone into improving the efficiency with which energy is consumed. The economic benefits of energy conservation are clear. The World bank's own study suggested that conservation measures saving 20 per cent. of commercial energy used in the developing world would amount to about !30 billion per annum of total government savings, which is equivalent to about two thirds of total aid flows. It is equivalent to 60 per cent. of the net flow of resources from poor to rich due to debt servicing. Recent announcements that the bank will increase its support for energy efficiency and the recommendations on that in the IDA9 agreement are greatly welcomed. However, will the Government carefully monitor whether lending is indeed focused upon renewable energy, energy efficiency and least-cost planning from now on? A radical switch in priorities is an economic and environmental necessity.
The new IDA9 agreement contains unprecedented language on many environmental aspects of its work, and that is very much to be welcomed. It is good to see references, at last, to increased public access to information on IDA projects and programmes, public participation in IDA projects, and improvement and implementation of the bank's operational directive on environmental impact assessments. However, the bank still has a long way to go. It first announced its environmental reforms and the creation of an environmental department in 1987, but examination of projects since then shows that the hoped-for improvement in the bank's
700
policies, especially regarding tribal people and forced resettlement, has not materialised. The goals and guidelines are there, but they have not been incorporated into the bank's operations.
The central environmental department has been marginalised as the 1987–88 reorganisation decentralised decisions to regions, while the four environmental units in the regional offices are hampered by lack of authority and small budgets. The operational directive on environmental assessment encourages, but does not require, public involvement in the process of drawing up environmental impact assessments. It states that the need for environmental impact assessments should be considered, not that it must be done, and it explicitly includes non-project and structural adjustment lending from environmental improvement assessments.
Can the Minister assure the House today that work is under way to ensure that the new environmental language in IDA9 is implemented? Can she report any evidence that the bank is making environmental assessments available to the public, carrying out environmental impact assessments in all necessary cases and involving the people most affected by projects?
The news that the World bank is to triple funding for forestry is worrying, given the bank's previous forestry record and the decision to channel those funds through the tropical forestry action plan. So far, TFAP has promoted commercial forestry and ignored the needs of indigenous people who rely upon the forests, and last year's review process has not solved that problem. For example, one of the first projects to be funded by the bank is a !23 million forestry and fisheries project in Guinea. In fact, it is a deforestation scheme, paying for the construction of 45 miles of road in or around two humid forest reserves totalling 150,000 hectares, two thirds of which are pristine forest, of which two thirds will be opened up for timber production. Just as the Government should refuse to channel funds through the TFAP mechanism until comprehensive reviews are in place, so should the World bank.
The Minister mentioned the effects of the Gulf crisis, and the level of replenishment of IDA9 more than maintains the real value of IDA8. That is also to be welcomed if the reforms are implemented and the money is well spent on genuine development. However, there is no doubt about the enormous need for concessional funds in developing countries, and the Gulf crisis has certainly exacerbated the situation.
The oil price rise is devastating third-world countries. In Mozambique, one of the five countries hit by famine, flights of food supplies have been cancelled because fuel costs are too great. In this context, I was glad to hear the Minister say that the increased costs would not hamper famine relief for Ethiopia, the Sudan, Angola and Liberia.
According to United Nations economists, the world's poorest countries will have to find an extra !32 billion for oil this year. Already crippled by debt repayments, they simply cannot afford to buy the oil to keep their economies going. At the same time, many developing countries have lost a vital source of foreign exchange as their nationals have had to flee home from the Gulf. Before the invasion, one third of Bangladesh's foreign exchange earnings came from workers in the Gulf; now Bangladesh has not only lost vital earnings, but has had to cope with transporting and supporting thousands of refugees.

701
The crisis has already cost African nations !2 billion last year. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka lost more than !2·5 billion. All four import oil, had strong trade links with Iraq and Kuwait, and depended on remittances from thousands of citizens working in the Gulf.
Under article 50 of the United Nations charter, countries affected by United Nations actions can claim compensation, but the United Nations' has no budget allocation with which to pay them. Egypt, Jordan and Turkey are receiving aid in partial compensation for the enormous toll that sanctions take on their economy, but the poorest nations, which are devastated by the oil price rise, have received nothing. The Government should work with others to set up a United Nations' fund to finance article 50. Without that, those least able to pay will bear the costs of the crisis.
Finally, I must say a few words about the Caribbean development bank. Like other regions, the Caribbean needs aid and capital flows, but debt and the Gulf crisis are taking their toll there as well. The current oil crisis means that Jamaica will have to pay an extra !50 million each year for its oil imports. Uncertainty over the Gulf, combined with recession in the United States and Canada, is already hitting the tourist trade, a major source of foreign exchange. Jamaica is one of the most indebted countries in the world—its !4·5 billion debt represents !1,800 for every man, woman and child on the island while gross national product is just !1,200 per person. A hefty proportion of the debt is owed to the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. Along with bilateral donors, those official agencies are now taking more out of Jamaica than they are putting in through new loans. Not surprisingly, research shows that one third of Jamaicans are unable to feed themselves adequately. The Jamaican Government want to invest in health and education, but under IMF auspices the percentage of public spending devoted to those essentials has declined.
The need for the Caribbean countries to develop and diversify their export base has long been recognised. Continued dependence on goods such as bananas could be crippling after 1992. Not enough thought is yet being given to the impact of the European single market on developing countries. The various mechanisms, such as the Lome convention and the United States Caribbean basin initiative, have not brought about sustained export growth in new sectors. The Caribbean development bank must support the continued effort for export diversification. For the British dependencies, the Caribbean development bank provides a valuable link with multilateral funds to which they would not otherwise have access.
I welcome both the orders, although I enter a caveat in regard to the Caribbean development bank. That part of the world needs every possible form of help if it is to overcome the major structural problems that exist in the region as a whole.
9.44 pm
Mr. Jim Lester: At the end of her speech the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that she welcomed both orders. Until that point I felt that much of her curmudgeonly criticism implied that she did not. I am glad that she does. All those hon. Members who take an interest in the third world, and poverty in particular, have a very soft spot for the International Development
702
Association and its work. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said in her speech, IDA has played an increasingly important co-ordinating role in terms of both bilateral aid and major World bank aid. The fact that IDA lends on such advantageous concessionary terms—even down to no interest at all—means that it is one of the most effective ways to lend money without causing an increasing debt problem.
In recent years there has been a convergence of thought about the transfer of resources to the developing world. That convergence is to be seen in the World bank and other United Nations agencies, but it is seen in its most welcome form in the South-South report that was compiled by the third world. Many of its recommendations repeat exactly the same conditions as are laid down by IDA and the United Nations Development Programme. That convergence ought to allow us to be more forthright in supporting the ninth replenishment order.
My right hon. Friend suggested that the order deals sensitively with the principal issues and concentrates on those that cause us most concern. Poverty, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, is one of the most difficult problems to overcome, not because of the World bank's original policy and our own bilateral aid but partly because of the way in which such matters are dealt with by various Governments. For example, the Government of the Sudan do not consider that all the poor people in their country are part of the system. It is difficult, therefore, to offer aid that will provide long-term assistance for the poorest people in the Sudan and similar countries. Their Governments do not recognise the existence of poor people.
When the amount of money needed for replenishment was debated, the problems in the Gulf had not arisen. Those of us who have travelled recently in developing countries know that the prospect of an increase in the price of oil, particularly in those countries that depend on the Soviet Union for their oil supplies at subsidised rates, causes dread. My right hon. Friend ought to keep that point very much in mind. Part of IDA's funds is used for essential imports. For many countries, their most essential import is oil. After the order has been approved, a further statement ought to be made about our intentions if we are to solve the oil problem for these countries in a co-ordinated and helpful way.
I welcome the statement that 45 to 50 per cent. of IDA's funds should continue to be given to Africa. Despite the bad news in the Horn of Africa—Somalia, Ethiopia and the Sudan—many of us believe that welcome changes are being made in Mozambique. It is also possible that the civil war in Angola will come to an end, which is to be welcomed, as is the prospect of the end of apartheid in South Africa. During the next three years there is the potential for pump-priming assistance to be given to those countries in Africa, such as Mozambique and Angola, that have tremendous national resources. All they need is peace and the opportunity to concentrate on their own future. Aid in the form of pump priming would be paid back a hundredfold in terms of the relief of poverty, particularly in Mozambique, the poorest country in the world yet the one with the most tremendous development potential.
Those who think much about Africa recognise that, far from being in the third world, some African countries

703
could slip into the fourth world and way below anything that we have seen so far. We want to maintain and ensure the commitment of the ninth replenishment.
I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Trinidad terms—we seem to be debating all the "Ts"—and the Toronto terms for debt relief. I hope that the new Chancellor will pursue this with the same enthusiasm as his predecessor. We must act quickly if we are to fulfil the conditions and rules by which we approve both orders.
9.50 pm
Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). My hon. Friend showed that we have come a long way since the earliest days of International Development Association concession funding. Perhaps the hon. Lady did not realise quite what a change there has been: one certainly would not have thought so from her remarks tonight.
The hon. Lady asked about the poverty focus of our aid programme. I stressed our efforts, through IDA and World bank loans, to focus on poverty. More than 80 per cent. of our bilateral programme is focused on countries with a gross national product per head of less than !700. We target the poorest developing countries by encouraging and supporting economic reform programmes. We need to help them to stimulate their own growth, which is critical to their long-term success. We try to ensure that their reform programmes take into account the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable so that they are safeguarded. That is part of the general approach of the World bank, and certainly of the IDA programmes.
A further way by which we seek to help under our programmes is direct poverty alleviation, which in India alone amounts to more than £130 million worth of commitments from the British aid programme. There is much going on under the British aid programme, let alone under the enhanced focus of the World bank, which we have been in the forefront of encouraging.
The hon. Lady sought to say that we do not do very much and used that awful word "complacent". My goodness, I shall never be complacent while there are mouths to feed and people who need help in the third world, let alone in our own country. She does not realise that sometimes one must work for a long time to get something as well focused as the ninth replenishment of IDA. The World bank has come a long way in the past two or three years. The hon. Lady need have no fear, because through our executive director in Washington we shall continue to play the fullest possible role in the decisions of the bank. That is why we ensure that we are represented at all the international meetings, including the one in the Netherlands on Africa. That was not a World bank meeting but a mixture of many of us who are thoroughly involved in the development needs of Africa and the third world. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but it was attended by my deputy secretary. I received a good report, and I have been in touch with my Dutch opposite number to get as much as one can from the meeting without being there in person.
704
The hon. Lady said that the World bank was not paying enough attention to people and poverty. I could tell her at length—I will not do so because I know that she is tired after returning from the far east—what has been going on.
I was glad that the hon. Lady welcomed the world development report. We also welcomed it. The board of the World bank will give special consideration to how to deal with poverty through all its projects later this month. That is a result partly of the discussions that we have had about the IDA replenishment and partly of the general emphasis which is now placed on poverty alleviation. The board of the World bank is doing exactly what the hon. Lady criticised it for failing to do. I assure her that we shall press it to continue to take the matter seriously.
The hon. Lady said that the World bank handbook had been issued. I believe that it has not yet been issued, but if it contains anything from which we could learn or which we could utilise, we shall do so. We are not embarrassed about adopting good ideas wherever they come from, provided that they will work and can be helpful.
The hon. Lady went on to talk about debt relief, another subject on which we could have an entire debate. I shall not speak about it at length. Suffice it to say that the IDA has !100 million to help recipients to buy back commercial debt at a discount. The assistance is limited to !10 million for any one country. To qualify, countries must have a satisfactory adjustment programme, and debt management strategies. The assistance is in grant form —a fact which many people do not realise. Niger has had its operation approved and discussions on Bolivia and Mozambique are taking place. It is a modest facility and it can be used only in certain cases, but it will help many countries in the future.
IDA assistance is also available to countries with outstanding International Bank for Reconstruction and Development debts. Repayments of IDA credits are mostly committed in advance of the new lending. It would be imprudent to commit them in full as all the expected repayments may not be forthcoming. So 10 per cent. of the expected reflows each year are not committed in advance but are used to supplement IDA credits to IDA-only countries with IDA supported adjustment programmes which have outstanding World bank debts. Certainly the IDA is helping many countries in that position.
During the months that the hon. Lady and I have faced each other at the Dispatch Box, she has made several criticisms of the environmental aspects of World bank projects. She knows how keen I am to make sure that only environmentally sound projects are undertaken. In the past projects have been initiated which were subject to fair criticisms. But it is only a handful of projects, all of which are old ones which began before the World bank became aware of environmental issues.
The hon. Lady should remember that the bank's presence and the conditionality of the projects help to mitigate the damage. That must continue to be so. The bank is seeking to improve its performance and to make what improvements are possible to old projects. The various regional vice-presidencies, which are responsible for the country programmes, each have environmental units and if we found anything of the nature that the hon. Lady described we should take it up with them.
The hon. Lady mentioned one such project in detail. It would be sensible for me to write to her about it and put the letter in the Library. Often at the beginning of major projects an agreement is made that the recipient country

705
will safeguard the resettlement and rehabilitation of people who are displaced by a project which they fully support. If the World bank finds that that is not done, it is landed with a problem not of its own making but for which it is blamed even though the recipient Government did not carry through the original agreement.
In many cases that is at least part of the answer to the sorts of problem which the hon. Lady and I come across and which we wish not to see in future projects. In other words, we should seek to ensure that the World bank takes safeguards to ensure that the recipient country cannot fall down on the rehabilitation and resettlement of those whom it undertook to look after. Once that has happened, it is extremely difficult to put right. The bank is making considerable efforts to persuade the Indians to deal with resettlement on the projects which the hon. Lady mentioned. Unfortunately, it is taking a long time, but we shall see what can be done to assist.
I thoroughly agree with the hon. Lady that energy projects should be energy efficient. She will know from previous debates that we are insisting on much more efficient use of energy in all our bilateral programmes. That is also becoming true for the World bank. If she comes across a project, whether a World bank project or, I hope not, even a bilateral project which she believes will not meet environmental or energy-efficient guidelines, I want her to tell me straight away so that I can do something about it. I hope that that will not happen, but if it does, let us at least avert the impending disaster that she perceives by acting on the first possible knowledge.
The hon. Lady also mentioned problems in forestry. She said that the World bank had supported several forestry projects which were less than sensible. It is unrealistic to expect logging simply to stop. I think that she knows that in her heart of hearts when she thinks about what it means. The bank has had problems with certain Governments who saw logging as a way of getting income. The bank has been seeking to persuade those Governments to log only sustainably managed forests. That must be how it should work in future.
Logging cannot be wholly eliminated. Indeed, forestry experts tell me that it should not be, but that it needs to be properly managed. I hope that the World bank will consult non-governmental organisations on projects to make sure that logging is from sustainably managed forests always and that indigenous people are given proper management training on how to maintain the forests.
The hon. Lady went on to say something about the Gulf crisis. I fully agree with her about the serious impact on many poor countries. There is a good chance that many of them, such as Jamaica, will get help from IDA. If there are adequate voluntary additional donor contributions that may be possible.
Many of the other aspects of our short debate on which the hon. Lady touched concern the Caribbean Development bank. Its work is interesting and exceptional. We have a programme in Jamaica where the
706
disbursements are likely to be in excess of £5 million this year. In the past 10 years, capital aid to Jamaica has been provided largely as programme aid in support of its structural adjustment programmes. The £7·5 million loan which we agreed three years ago is being used in part to provide textbooks in secondary schools. We have provided a further £3 million grant to assist with reconstruction after hurricane Gilbert in September 1988. A further grant of £7·5 million was agreed last April, of which £3 million of programme aid was in support of its latest economic recovery measures.
All donors find it takes time to identify sound projects, but when we do we can commit the loans that we have agreed to ensure that there is a full disbursement of the balances and that the grants are likely to continue as planned from the beginning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred to Africa as being one of the most needy continents, particularly at this time, and on that there will be no difference between any of us in this House. We must ensure that we spend our money wisely and efficiently in the best interests of those in need. We should discuss with them at all stages what their interests are and ensure that the programmes that we work out with them address the key issues of poverty alleviation, environmental conservation and the building of a more healthy and better society for those people. We hope that IDA, the concessional arm of the World bank, will achieve that to an even greater extent in the future than perhaps it has done in the past. We shall leave no stone unturned to ensure that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft International Development Association (Ninth Replenishment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

CENSUS (CONFIDENTIALITY) BILL [LORDS]
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Census (Confidentiality) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

MEMBERS' INTERESTS
Ordered,
That Mr. David Evans be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. Peter Viggers be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

PROCEDURE
Ordered,
That Mr. William Powell be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mrs. Marion Roe be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

NHS (Negligence Claims)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
10.6 pm
Mr. Peter Fry: Perhaps I should explain to my hon. Friend the Minister the reasons for raising this particular subject on the Adjournment. First, for some years now I have been concerned about the way in which health authorities have to fund the payments that they make after successful claims for compensation. Secondly, unfortunately, last year, one of my constituents, Donna Horne, suffered a grievous blow to her health after treatment at Leicester hospital. Her case is sub judice and I must be careful in what I say, but the tragic case of Donna Horne brought home to me the need for more to be done to assist those who are the unfortunate victims of negligence of national health service treatment.
It was only when I was discussing Donna's case with her legal adviser that I became even more aware of the deficiencies in the common law of tort. I discovered that, even though the majority of such cases—more than 90 per cent.—are settled out of court, a settlement can still take up to 10 years or more. The idea that there should be a regular payment or a periodic or structured payment can be agreed only if the judge finds out that the defendant and plaintiff have agreed to such a decision. Unfortunately, what happens now is that, often, there seems to be some unseemly wrangle about the amount of the lump sum to be paid based on the life expectancy of the unfortunate victim. Because of that, many years of negotiation take place even when the case is settled out of court.
Because of my concern about that, I put down a question on 3 December to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to ask him if he would consider producing guidelines which could be used by Her Majesty's judges to make orders for such structured payments. My right hon. and learned Friend replied that that was a matter for the judiciary. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend did not want to mislead me, but his reply was misleading. As the organisation Action for Victims of Medical Accidents has said, periodical payments such as a yearly payment, perhaps uprated by the retail prices index each year, can be awarded by a judge only if both sides to the dispute consent.
In the case of Burke v. Tower Hamlets health authority on 10 August 1989, Mr. Justice Drake held:
"in determining quantum of damages for the costs of future care in a case of personal injury, the court has no power to order periodical payments instead of a lump sum except when both parties to the action consent to such an award."
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that Action for Victims of Medical Accidents wrote to me saying:
"It is only the Government that can change this by changing the law so that periodical payment orders can be made whether the Defendant consents or not."
In the circumstances, there seems to be a need for the law to be changed.
I understand that there are some in Government quarters who believe that there can be reform of civil procedures in order to accelerate the progress of such cases through the legal system. But those cases are often medically complex and sometimes the prognosis is uncertain. Therefore, delay could well occur even if other
708
steps were taken to speed up the process, particularly as it seems that the arguments about the size of the cash award could be protracted.
It is interesting that a full report drawn up by the Royal College of Physicians on the subject states on page 14:
"The problems associated with one-off, lump-sum payments in negligence cases might be reduced by measures to encourage the use of provisional damages and structured payments. The former would allow cases to be concluded, either by means of a lump sum or a regular payment, on the basis of an assessment of the plaintiff's present condition while reserving his or her right to seek a revision if this condition changed adversely. The latter would provide for the payment of an agreed regular sum (without the prospect of subsequent revision) to the plaintiff for the duration of his or her natural life, thereby eliminating the problem of the 'pools win' type dissipation of a large single payment."
It goes on to say—this is of special interest to health authorities—
"Periodic payments would seem a particularly appropriate form of settlement for public bodies like health authorities to adopt since they can be assumed to have an indefinite life and need not become involved in the problems of arranging capital provision annuities which have arisen with private insurers … It is possible that courts could by primary legislation be empowered to impose structured settlements, rather than depending purely on the plaintiff's consent as at present."
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give my proposal serious and urgent attention. Victims of such terrible cases and their relatives would like to know that the Government are urgently addressing a problem that is increasing as more and more claims are made. I should like my hon. Friend to do what he can to convince the victims and their relatives that the Government are anxious to ensure that no unnecessary additional suffering is caused by prolonged litigation and that, by contrast, litigation should be kept to an absolute minimum.
I know that from 1 January 1990 the national health service has accepted that it will be responsible for claims against doctors and health authorities where it is said that negligence has occurred. My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that such sums still have to come from health authorities' budgets. The first £200,000 of a claim must be met by the district health authority—a matter of considerable anxiety to many health authorities. First, the timing of an award being made against them is uncertain, as is the amount, because of the present legal process. Many district health authorities suddenly confronted by a bill for £200,000 for which they have not budgeted would be in great difficulty finding the money without taking drastic action—even perhaps closing wards. If, by any chance, they are faced with two such claims in one financial year, it is almost certain that health services in their areas would have to be cut.
The regions are not in a much better position. Few have adequate sinking or reserve funds to meet such claims. Even when they have such funds, as does my region—Oxford RHA—they will soon be depleted because of the claims on them.
I have discussed the matter with the chairmen of two RHAs and both agreed that some better method of funding is badly needed. One reason why is that there is a sharp growth in the frequency and severity of medical liability claims, and the problem for many health authorities is how to meet the cost of those claims. The Government have accepted that they have overall responsibility for negligence claims, but they must also

709
make clear provision for fulfilling that responsibility, and in such a way as not to impose a handicap on the day-to-day funding of the NHS.
I do not suggest for a moment that health authorities that are negligent should be allowed to be less vigilant. Any cases of negligence must be fully investigated and the necessary steps taken to prevent their recurrence. But, just as the Government have decided that doctors should not be expected to be financially responsible for claims against them, they should also ensure that health authority patients do not suffer because of these payments.
The timing of this debate is apposite in view of the introduction of a private Member's Bill by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who I am delighted to see in her place. She intends to introduce a Bill for no-fault compensation. The Government have considerable reservations about it, but I sympathise with the hon. Lady's Bill as well as understanding those reservations. If the Government do not like her Bill, they are obliged not only to show why they cannot accept it but to put forward a coherent and realistic policy to deal with cases of compensation such as the one that I have discussed tonight. When such a tragedy takes place, people want every sympathy and the knowledge that their difficult situation can be remedied as soon as possible. The health authority should feel that it can make reasonable and fair payments without having to consider their effect on the day-to-day running of their services.
The two measures that I have suggested can apply whether or not the hon. Lady's Bill comes into force. She will argue that patients will still have the right to go to law if they are not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them. If the Minister accepts that, I wonder whether he will accept my final point: that these two measures will apply whether the hon. Lady's Bill is accepted or not, but that if the Government do not accept it, these measures will become even more essential as a sign that the Government are concerned about this matter and are aware that it is a cause of growing anxiety throughout the country. They must have a realistic policy to deal with this difficulty.
10.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) on securing the first Adjournment debate of the new year and on raising an issue of such obvious current concern to the House, not least as a result of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). My hon. Friend deployed his argument in measured tones, and it was a seductive one due to the position in which the Government find themselves. I shall respond first to his closing comments.
It is clearly true that the two specific arguments that my hon. Friend advances are independent of any consideration of no-fault liability and must therefore be considered regardless of the Government's attitude to the proposals advanced by the hon. Member for Greenwich.
I entirely understand the position in which my hon. Friend found himself when he represented a constituency interest as a result of a case of medical negligence. There are difficult issues to be addressed when dealing with individual cases of such a nature, and I shall respond in some detail to both of my hon. Friend's specific proposals.
710
I shall deal first with the argument that the health authorities are primarily responsible for compensation for proved medical negligence.
When health authority resources are scarce—and was there ever a time when they were not—health authority managers argue that responsibility for funding such an award should fall elsewhere in the national health service. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that, however that is presented in bureaucratic terms, the reality is that any cash paid to meet a medical negligence claim or a no-fault claim by a patient must come from the limited resources available to the NHS. It is purely a bureaucratic decision whether such sums come from the budget of a specific health authority or from some back pocket in the Department. The only way to fund such a back pocket is to top slice the total NHS budget, thereby reducing the amount committed at the beginning of the year to health authorities.
My hon. Friend will accept that there is a degree of kidology about his proposal because whatever part of the NHS the claims were met from they would still be deducted from the NHS budget, and that would reduce the amount of resources available for patient treatment either in the health authority responsible for the payment or elsewhere.
Secondly, one of the reasons for keeping the principle of allowing a claim for negligence is to ensure that the clinician and the health authority as the clinician's employer are held to account if a case of negligence can be proved. I think that that is accepted by the hon. Member for Greenwich. That is a major reason for keeping the principle of negligence, even if we accept the principle of no-fault liability. We must retain the principle that damages should be payable if negligence can be proved, but that argument is powerful only if the responsibility for meeting a negligence claim rests reasonably directly either on the clinician or on the employing authority. If a concentration of negligence claims came to a health authority, it could cause financial difficulty. No one but a blind man could fail to recognise that.
Nevertheless, it is important that the primary responsibility for funding the payment of negligence claims should rest with the body which can properly be held accountable for the fact that negligence took place. After all, in the case of claims for proven negligence, we are talking about the individual's right to redress when he suffers as a result of somebody not properly discharging his professional responsibility. All those interested in the subject agree that, in those circumstances, proper redress should be available to the individual citizen, and the person responsible for the negligence should be held to account through the agency of the health authority. I understand the force of what my hon. Friend said, but I should not want to see liability for payment of negligence claims divorced from the circumstances which gave rise to the negligence.
My hon. Friend spoke at some length about what he, his constituent and her legal advisers understandably see as the inadequacies of the law of tort in dealing with claims of medical negligence. It is common ground that the law in this sector is inadequate in some respects. That is why Lord Hailsham, when he was Lord Chancellor, established a civil justice review to improve the machinery of civil justice in England and Wales by means of reforms in jurisdiction, procedure and court administration, and in particular to reduce delay, cost and complexity. That

711
review reported in June 1988 and many of its proposals found their way into legislation through the Courts and Legal Services Act 1989. The Government are committed to doing everything in their power to make the operation of the civil justice system, and in this context the law on medical negligence, effective.
I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Greenwich that because the law is inadequate in some respects that is sufficient reason to overturn the principle underlying the law. The principle is right, although I accept my hon. Friend's point that in practice the operation of the law is not as good as it should be and therefore should be improved. The Government are firmly committed to doing that.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Is the Minister convinced that the law of tort, with its confrontational approach, is appropriate in the situations which can arise in the NHS? For example, a patient may have a confident, long-standing relationship with his doctor but something goes seriously wrong, although that is nobody's fault. In an organisation as large as the NHS, there can be accidents. The only form of redress is through the confrontational legal process, which has major disadvantages for all concerned. Is there not a more civilised way to deal with the problem?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to deploy her argument in due time. I believe that it is common ground between us that, when a clinician is negligent, the right of a citizen to redress for that negligence should not be withdrawn. That should not be done differently from the way in which the law of tort is generally pursued in the courts. I do not think that the hon. Lady has any proposals which would change the way in which a claim for medical negligence, where that can be proved against a clinician and employing health authority, will be proceeded with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough talked about structured payments and phased payments in the event of a medical negligence claim. Those matters were the subject of a review by the Pearson commission in 1978. It was recommended by a majority that provision should be made for damages in the form of periodic payments for future pecuniary loss caused by death or serious and lasting injury.
The Government consulted on the recommendation and found that the idea met with almost universal hostility. That was mainly on the ground that plaintiffs and defendants like a lump sum. Against the background of the consultation—there was virtually no support for the principle of setting up new machinery for dealing with phased payments—the Government decided not to proceed with the Pearson commission's recommendation. As my hon. Friend knows, however, the law allows for the possibility of phased payments. In 1987, that possibility was made somewhat easier to implement when the Inland Revenue reached agreement with the Association of British Insurers that income payments in damages awards
712
would be tax free. Despite the fact that the tax position has improved when a phased payment is made as a result of a medical negligence claim, few such payments are made.
I heard what my hon. Friend said about phased payments and I shall take the matter away and reconsider it, but it is something that has been considered by the Government in the past. The Pearson commission recommended the same line as that which my hon. Friend has suggested, but when the Government consulted they did not find much support for it. That is not to say that we should dismiss the proposal, however, and I have said that I will reconsider it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he approached the debate. My approach is to recognise the shortcomings of the existing system and then to urge that we try to make it work better. I take that view because we must accept that medical care is never risk free. It is an artificial process involving artificial interference with a patient. There will always be a residual risk, even when the doctor is entirely diligent, that medical care will not be successful and may even lead to damage to the patient.
The question that the House will ultimately have to address when the hon. Member for Greenwich introduces her Bill is who should take on the risk of cases in which the doctor is diligent. There is no dispute that when the doctor is negligent it is for the health authority and the health service to make recompense for the negligence. Should the state take on the risk if the doctor is diligent, even though any patient who goes for medical treatment must accept that there is always a risk attached to that treatment? If the doctor is diligent, it seems to me reasonable to ask the individual to take the risk on himself, especially when we bear in mind that if the state were to take upon itself the underwriting of the risk the effect would be not to eliminate all difficulty or unhappiness arising from disability but merely to move the boundary. We provide for damages in cases in which the NHS is negligent, but not where it is diligent. The effect of the proposal of the hon. Member for Greenwich would be to move—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have been patient. The Minister is going beyond the subject of the debate and anticipating an issue which will be coming before the House.
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough for recognising that the arguments do not in themselves undermine the basis on which the law currently operates.
Our objective should be to ensure that the present law, which holds clinicians to account when they are negligent but does not seek to impose on the health service an obligation to underwrite risk when they are diligent, operates more fairly and effectively in future. That principle is one that the Government wholeheartedly embrace, and I shall seek to demonstrate to my hon. Friend and to the rest of the House that we are able to take practical steps to make that principle real in the months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Shipbuilding
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the amount of merchant ship tonnage in British yards(a) under construction and (b) already ordered., in 1979 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Leigh
  The information is as follows:

  Under construction

  thousand gross tonnes already ordered

  1979

  508

  264

  1 1990

  275

  387

  1 End of 3rd quarter.

  Source: Department of Trade and Industry.

  NATO Central Supplies Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department's arrangements for housing the NATO central supplies agency have been completed; and what is the estimated cost of setting up, activating and operating the United Kingdom base for the central supplies agency.

  Mr. Leigh
  A site has been identified for the location of the eastern branch of the NATO Central Supplies Agency. this site is presently occupied by a civilian organisation which will give it up on short notice if it is required to house the CSA during crisis or war. Until the site is required to house the CSA, the peacetime occupier will bear the rental and maintenance costs. It is not possible to say at this time what the costs of setting up and operating the agency in crisis or war might be. The cost of operating the agency in such cirmcumstances would fall to NATO.

  Racing
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will order an investigation into whether the practices of large bookmaking companies include the rigging or fixing of odds on United Kingdom racecourses and tracks.

  Mr. Redwood
  The practice of "laying-off" of bets is not illegal under the gaming legislation. During its investigation of the Grand Metropolitan/William Hill merger in 1989, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission looked at the practice in this context. They found that there was little evidence that the bookmakers had acted other than defensively in laying-off bets, in order that the odds should reflect the weight of money placed off-course. It therefore concluded that the merger did not operate against the public interest. In the light of the Channel 4 programme "Dispatches" shown on 12 December, the Office of Fair Trading is considering whether any new issues are raised which warrant further action.

  Export Manual
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the most recent date on which his Department's export licence unit manual of instructions was revised, in particular in respect of the export of strategic materials and weaponry.

  Mr. Lilley
  The manual is amended on a continuous basis in the light of changing circumstances.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government about the tax discrimination made by the Chilean Government against Scotch whisky.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government are continuing to press for elimination of the tax discrimination against exports of Scotch whisky to Chile both on its bilateral contacts with the Chilean authorities and through the Commission of the European Communities.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to expedite the publication of his Department's annual report under section 729 of the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  The most recent report was published on 7 November 1990. The publication date is determined mainly by the time needed to compile the comprehensive statistical information contained in the report. It is always published as soon as possible after the material is available.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy relating to accountancy firm mergers.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government's policy on mergers in the accountancy profession is the same as for any other mergers. Each case is considered on its individual merits.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any of Britain's top 300 companies are audited by firms criticised by his Department's inspectors.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 26 October 1990 Official Report, column 330.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will propose legislation under which company auditors would be banned from recruiting directors of their client companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  I see no reason to do so. Ethical guidance issued by the professional accountancy bodies states that no one should take part in the audit of a company if he has, during the period on which the report is to be made or at any time in the two years prior to the first day of that period, been an officer, other than auditor,
  353
  or employee of that company. Under part II of the Companies Act 1989, recognised supervisory bodies are required to have adequate rules and practices as to professional integrity and independence.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will propose legislation under which shareholders would be given a copy of the auditors' letter of weakness.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The value of a letter of weakness stems from the fact that it is a confidential communication from the auditors to the management of a company. It must be for management, in consultation with the auditors, to decide which third parties, if any, need to be aware of its contents.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the accountants criticised in the Euroflame report are still permitted to carry out company audits.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes.

  Trading Standards Prosecutions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many trading standards prosecutions were brought in 1990 by each local authority to whom such prosecutions are delegated, whether he is satisfied that similar standards of inspection and prosecution are being applied nationally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The table gives the numbers of prosecutions brought by local authority trading standards departments in Great Britain in the year 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990. This is the latest period for which such information is available. Each local weights and measures authority is responsible for enforcing trading standards legislation in its area. The local authority associations have set up the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards whose functions include co-ordinating operational practice.

  Number of prosecutions under all consumer protection statutes brought by local authority trading standards departments 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Authority

  Number of prosecutions

  Summary

  Indictment

  Total

  England:

  County Councils

  Avon

  95

  1

  96

  Bedfordshire

  78

  0

  78

  Berkshire

  63

  3

  66

  Buckinghamshire

  72

  0

  72

  Cambridgeshire

  141

  0

  141

  Cheshire

  168

  9

  177

  Cleveland

  75

  0

  75

  Cornwall

  49

  2

  51

  Cumbria

  34

  0

  34

  Derbyshire

  142

  0

  142

  Devon

  889

  1

  890

  Dorset

  58

  0

  58

  Durham

  63

  0

  63

  East Sussex

  38

  2

  40

  Essex

  320

  4

  324

  Hampshire

  167

  4

  171

  Hereford and Worcester

  76

  0

  76

  Hertfordshire

  33

  2

  35

  Humberside

  302

  12

  314

  Isle of Wight

  3

  0

  3

  354

  Authority

  Number of prosecutions

  Summary

  Indictment

  Total

  Kent

  531

  12

  543

  Lancashire

  231

  9

  240

  Leicestershire

  110

  1

  111

  Lincolnshire

  33

  0

  33

  Norfolk

  34

  1

  35

  North Yorkshire

  421

  4

  425

  Northamptonshire

  105

  0

  105

  Northumberland

  217

  1

  218

  Nottinghamshire

  134

  1

  135

  Oxfordshire

  144

  0

  144

  Shropshire

  251

  27

  278

  Somerset

  136

  2

  138

  Staffordshire

  39

  1

  40

  Suffolk

  13

  0

  13

  Surrey

  228

  0

  228

  Warwickshire

  137

  9

  146

  West Sussex

  85

  1

  86

  Wiltshire

  119

  0

  119

  Metropolitan District Councils

  Barnsley

  36

  0

  36

  Birmingham

  127

  64

  191

  Bolton

  29

  1

  30

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  44

  1

  45

  Doncaster

  28

  1

  29

  Dudley

  33

  0

  33

  Gateshead

  15

  0

  15

  Knowsley

  37

  1

  38

  Liverpool

  77

  0

  77

  Manchester

  30

  0

  30

  Newcastle

  214

  2

  216

  North Tyneside

  42

  1

  43

  Oldham

  24

  2

  26

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  31

  0

  31

  Salford

  49

  0

  49

  Sandwell

  32

  0

  32

  Sefton

  41

  0

  41

  Sheffield

  61

  0

  61

  Solihull

  32

  1

  33

  South Tyneside

  25

  0

  25

  St. Helens

  49

  2

  51

  Stockport

  9

  0

  9

  Sunderland

  38

  0

  38

  Tameside

  10

  0

  10

  Trafford

  4

  1

  5

  Walsall

  97

  2

  99

  West Yorkshire1

  1,036

  11

  1,047

  Wigan

  7

  0

  7

  Wirral

  48

  0

  48

  Wolverhampton

  24

  0

  24

  London Boroughs

  Barking and Dagenham

  43

  0

  43

  Barnet

  39

  0

  39

  Bexley

  95

  0

  95

  Brent, Ealing and Harrow

  120

  4

  124

  Bromley

  34

  2

  36

  Camden

  4

  0

  4

  Corporation of London

  2

  0

  2

  Croydon

  84

  20

  104

  Enfield

  76

  2

  78

  Greenwich

  8

  0

  8

  Hackney

  16

  0

  16

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  14

  0

  14

  Haringey

  1

  0

  1

  Havering

  24

  0

  24

  Hillingdon

  15

  0

  15

  Hounslow

  20

  0

  20

  Kensington and Chelsea

  26

  0

  26

  Kingston

  21

  4

  25

  Lambeth

  24

  0

  24

  Lewisham

  3

  0

  3

  Merton

  6

  0

  6

  Newham

  7

  0

  7

  Redbridge

  29

  0

  29

  355

  Authority

  Number of prosecutions

  Summary

  Indictment

  Total

  Richmond upon Thames

  2

  0

  2

  Southwark

  29

  0

  29

  Waltham Forest

  44

  1

  45

  Wandsworth

  34

  0

  34

  Westminster

  41

  9

  50

  Scotland

  Regional and Island Councils

  Borders

  9

  0

  9

  Central

  64

  3

  67

  Dumfries and Galloway

  25

  0

  25

  Fife

  28

  0

  28

  Grampian

  22

  0

  22

  Highland

  1

  0

  1

  Lothian

  43

  0

  43

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  67

  6

  73

  Tayside

  32

  0

  32

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  Wales

  County Councils

  Clwyd

  143

  5

  148

  Dyfed

  43

  1

  44

  Gwent

  47

  1

  48

  Gwynedd

  22

  0

  22

  Mid Glamorgan

  126

  2

  128

  Powys

  30

  0

  30

  South Glamorgan

  27

  0

  27

  West Glamorgan

  18

  0

  18

  Notes—Details of prosecutions for Gloucestershire County Council, and the London Boroughs of Islington, Sutton and Tower Hamlets were not available.

  1The West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service is provided by a joint Committee of the Metropolitan Districts of Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield.

  Car Clocking
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any proposals to reduce the danger of purchasers being defrauded by the practice of car clocking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Clocking is a criminal offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Trading standards officers of local authorities have the appropriate powers to investigate cases and to prosecute offenders.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the precise purpose for which the machine tools to be exported by Matrix Churchill were to be used according to form C5 filled in by the exporter.

  Mr. Lilley
  I believe that the hon. Member is referring to information requested at C6 of the export licence application form. It had been the practice of successive Governments not to discuss information concerning individual export licences.

  Levitt Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the services which his Department has purchased from the Levitt Group.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am aware of none.
  356
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will place a copy of the FIMBRA report on the Levitt Group in the Library.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The report is a matter for FIMBRA.

  Sequestration
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the findings of the recent investigation into the operation of the scheme introduced by the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 whereby public funds are available for sequestration in Scotland; and what reform of the scheme is proposed.

  Mr. Redwood
  The policy evaluation is not yet complete.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for each year since inception, what was the number of sequestrations awarded under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 where the total debts have not exceeded £2,000.

  Mr. Redwood
  Comprehensive statistics are not available but the accountant in bankruptcy estimates, on the basis of a sampling exercise, that the percentage of sequestrations awarded annually where the total debts did not exceed £2,000 were as follows:

  per cent.

  1986

  2·9

  1987

  1·2

  1988

  2·8

  1989

  6·9

  The figure for 1989 is based on the information available on the total debts when the sampling exercise was undertaken and is provisional.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in cases of voluntary sequestration or sequestration, pursuant to a trust deed under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, what monitoring is applied to identify the payer of the pre-sequestration expenses such as legal fees and out-lays in connection with the petition; and what steps are taken to establish whether these expenses are paid by the trustee subsequently appointed or by a partner of the trustee or anyone associated with the trustee.

  Mr. Redwood
  A trust deed is an entirely private arrangement between truster and trustee and is not subject to supervision by the court. There is no provision in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 requiring or empowering the accountant in bankruptcy to identify the source of payment of pre-sequestration expenses.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the countries with whom he has had discussions about their export of uranium enrichment centrifuge or military sensitive equipment to Iraq.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. The export of such goods would require an export licence. The established practice is not to publish information about export licence applications.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the Export Credits Guarantee Department's portfolio management system.

  Mr. Lilley
  In his answer of 18 December 1989 to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), my predecessor announced that the Government had decided that ECGD should continue to provide export credit and financing support for United Kingdom project exports, but that, in order to reduce the costs of such support, radical new methods for the management of ECGD's political risk portfolio would be introduced.

  The Government continue to attach great importance to United Kingdom project and capital goods exports and to maintaining a viable and stable framework of ECGD support. However, the international debt crisis, and more recently the events in the Gulf, have shown the risks which are assumed by ECGD to be potentially very significant. Since the onset of the debt crisis ECGD has accumulated a deficit with the Exchequer of over £2·5 billion as a result of claims paid under its guarantees. This deficit has had to be financed by the taxpayer, and further substantial claims payments estimated at around £2·5 billion are expected over the next few years. It is important that future risks are underwritten on a prudent basis.

  Against this background, the ECGD has now introduced a portfolio management system—PMS—for its underwriting of project and capital goods exports. The purpose of PMS is to provide a more disciplined and prudent framework for taking decisions about ECGD support for such exports. PMS will allow Ministers better to weigh the national interest reasons for giving such support against the risks to the ECGD and the taxpayer that premium income will not be able to cover underwriting losses.

  With regard to PMS, the Government have now taken decisions on the availability of ECGD cover for a number of important overseas markets. It is not the ECGD's policy to disclose details of the amount of cover available for individual markets; exporters should contact the ECGD to ascertain the cover position in respect of contracts they are currently processing.

  Under PMS, the ECGD will also be introducing a new premium rating system for its guarantees in respect of project exports. The Government intend to press in international fora for other export credit agencies to charge more economic premium rates for export credit support, but, in the meantime, ECGD will be adopting new premium rates which will be matched more closely to risk. This will mean that rates for higher risk markets will rise, but there will be some reductions in the better risk markets. The new premium system will be introduced in 1991–92. Export contracts which are concluded in 1990–91 will attract premium rates under the current system. The ECGD will announce details of the new system in due course.

  Levitt Group
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all the companies in the Levitt Group, the regulatory body each company is a member of and the date of the last accounts of each company filed at Companies House.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 December 1990]: My information is as follows:

  Date of last accounts 1988

  The Levitt Group (Holdings) plc

  31 December

  The Levitt Group Ltd.—member of FIMBRA

  31 December

  R J Levitt Pension Consultants Ltd.

  31 December

  R J Levitt Insurance Consultants Ltd.

  31 December

  Devonshire House Ltd.

  31 December

  Levitt & Co Ltd.

  31 December

  Olympic Gold Financial Services Ltd.

  31 December

  The Levitt Group (Mortgage Services) Ltd.

  31 December

  The Levitt Group (Financial Services) Ltd.

  31 December

  The Mortgage Collection Ltd.

  31 December

  Devonshire General Insurance Consultants Ltd.

  31 December

  Deansway Developments Ltd.

  31 December

  Levitt Insurance Brokers Ltd.

  31 December

  Chambers & Newman Financial Services Ltd.

  31 December

  Chambers & Newman (European) Ltd.

  31 December

  Chambers, Newman & Walters Ltd.

  31 December

  Gyrobond Ltd.

  31 December

  Chambers & Newman (Holdings) Ltd.

  31 December

  Levitt Group (Nominees) Ltd.

  31 December

  Levitt Group (Leasing) Ltd.

  31 December

  Zohar Pictures Ltd.

  31 December

  Property Acumen plc

  31 December

  Knight, Ellis & Co Ltd.

  31 December

  The Levitt Group (Commercial Finance) Ltd.

  1—

  Newforce Properties Ltd.

  1—

  Faith Corporation Ltd

  2—

  Levitt Sports & Entertainment Ltd.

  2—

  The Levitt Group Investment Management Ltd.

  2—

  Levitt Securities Ltd.

  2—

  Christchurch Consultancy Management Services Ltd.

  2—

  Levitt Promotions Ltd.

  2—

  Levitt Financial Planning Ltd.

  2—

  Levitt Film, Finance & Insurance Services Ltd.

  2—

  CLP—Levitt Ltd.

  2—

  The Levitt Group (International Holdings) Ltd.

  2—

  Frank Maloney Promotions & Management Ltd.

  2—

  The Levitt Group Holdings Inc.

  3—

  The Levitt Group Inc.

  3—

  The Levitt Group Financial Services Inc

  3—

  Levitt (Ingeniene Financiere) S A

  3—

  The Levitt Group Ltd is a member of FIMBRA. Levitt Insurance Brokers Ltd. and Chambers & Newman Financial Services Ltd are members of IBRC.

  1 No accounts filed since incorporation

  2 Accounts not yet required

  3 Companies not registered in the United Kingdom

  Environmental Management Practice
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place between his Department and the British Standards Institute over the development by the British Standards Institute of a new standard on environmental management practice in production industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 20 December 1990]: My officials have had general discussions with a number of

  359
  organisations, including the British Standards Institute, about possible approaches to encouraging improved standards of environmental management by companies.

  Cereal Exports
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice he will give Grain and Feed Trade Association members regarding the provision of credit facilities for United Kingdom cereal exports to non EC countries in the light of the recent Russian decision not to trade unless credit facilities are made available.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply. In response to the credit needs of the Soviet Union, the European Council has agreed to introduce credit guarantees for Community exporters of food to that market. The details of the guarantees have yet to be worked out but they may be available to cereal exporters. For other non-EC markets, United Kingdom cereal exporters who need credit facilities may wish to seek them from banks or from the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  ERM
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement setting out the arrangements for a realignment of sterling within the ERM; and if this is a decision which the United Kingdom can make alone.

  Mr. Maples
  Adjustments to central rates between ERM member currencies are subject to mutual agreement by a common procedure which comprises all countries participating in the ERM. Any member state wishing to propose a realignment may do so. If necessary, a conference of finance Ministers, and Central Bank governors is held to consider any proposed realignment. The United Kingdom has no intention of seeking a realignment of sterling within the ERM.

ENERGY

  National Power
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what representations he has had from the chairman of National Power regarding its future levels of capital investment and its preferred financing methods for that capital investment;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of National Power regarding the proposed debt level to be injected into its balance sheet; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has had from the chairman of National Power regarding the expected level of profits to be declared for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Consultations with the chairman of National Power are confidential.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the number of applications for each of the 12 regional electricity companies that were made on(a) employee forms and (b) pensioner priority forms.
  360
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The numbers of applications for shares in the 12 regional electricity companies made on(a) employee forms and (b) pensioner priority forms are as set out in the table. A number of employees were eligible for and applied under both the discount and priority offer and the free and matching offer.

  Number of applications on employee forms1

  Number of applications on pensioner forms

  Eastern Electricity

  13,350

  2,377

  East Midlands Electricity

  10,320

  1,560

  London Electricity

  8,707

  2,163

  Manweb

  7,173

  1,180

  Midlands Electricity

  10,524

  2,048

  Northern Electricity

  7,197

  1,052

  NORWEB

  11,197

  1,907

  SEEBOARD

  8,289

  1,981

  Southern Electric

  10,873

  2,287

  South Wales Electricity

  5,068

  1,007

  South Western Electricity

  8,030

  1,566

  Yorkshire Electricity

  9,748

  1,743

  1 Provisional figures.

  These figures exclude 10,639 applications from employees of NGC and EASL for collections of shares.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to seek a further reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions during negotiations on the new European protocol.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The United Kingdom will play a positive part in the current discussions on the revision of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe protocol of sulphur dioxide emissions. All sources of sulphur dioxide emissions will be covered in the negotiations including those not already subject to separate ceilings. It is the Government's view that the new agreement should be based on the critical loads approach. It is too early to predict the outcome of these discussions.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the Birmingham Six; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to my earlier answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  Private Bailiffs
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received calling for the establishment of a complaints procedure against private bailiffs.

  The Attorney-General
  The National Consumer Council has recently published a report which recommends that the Lord Chancellor's Department should
  361
  advertise a central address and telephone number to receive complaints against private bailiffs. The Government are considering the recommendations of this report.

  Racist and Anti-Semitic Literature
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the prosecution of persons sending racist and anti-Semitic literature through the post.

  The Attorney-General
  Such people may commit offences under part III of the Public Order Act 1986, or under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. I am aware of 16 separate police investigations arising out of the distribution of allegedly anti-Semitic material through the post.

  CPS and Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies for professionally qualified staff exist currently in(a) the Crown prosecution service and (b) the Serious Fraud Office; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service currently has 366·5 vacancies for lawyers, within a total requirement for lawyers of 2,053. In the past 12 months the number of lawyers in post has increased from 1,580 to 1,686·5, an average net gain of 10·5 per month. There are no vacancies for lawyers or accountants in the Serious Fraud Office.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Vietnam
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase aid to Vietnam.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government are providing financial support to British non-governmental organisations for projects in Vietnam. We have no immediate plans to begin a direct aid programme, but we are keeping this question under review.

  Zaire Rain Forests
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much support has been given to preserving the rain forests of Zaire(a) in the last year, (b) five years ago and (c) 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our technical co-operation programme for Zaire is limited to training and assistance for English language teaching. But European Community commitments to forestry between 1987 and 1989 amounted to £10·7 million, and our share of these came to about £1·8 million.

  India
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding United Kingdom aid to India.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Aid to India continues to be the largest British bilateral aid programme amounting to over £500 million in the last five years.

  Sudan and Ethiopia
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what prospects Her Majesty's Government see of relieving the threat of famine in Sudan and Ethiopia.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what prospects the Overseas Development Administration sees of relieving the threat of famine for the people of Sudan and Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As I told the House on 19 December, effective relief machinery is in place in Ethiopia. Massawa port is open. Government and rebel groups are co-operating on relief. If this holds and the international community gives generously, we may be able to avert the worst effects of famine.

  The outlook for Sudan is very much worse. Given the scale of the crisis and the lack of Sudanese Government co-operation, it is hard to help, but we shall do what we can to alleviate hardship.

  Brazil
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made on bilateral aid agreements with Brazil on environmental matters.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have agreed four projects at a total cost to Her Majesty's Government of £4·6 million. All four are now under way. We expect to approve shortly a further four projects costing £4 million. A number of other project proposals are under discussion and awaiting the approval of the Brazilian authorities.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has put forward any proposals to the World Bank to reduce the burden of debt on third world countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain has taken the lead in international efforts to provide debt relief for the poorest and most heavily indebted countries. In Trinidad last September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, put forward proposals for increasing the relief available under earlier schemes. He proposed a reduction of two thirds in the official bilateral debt of eligible countries, with the remainder rescheduled over 25 years.

  Tied Aid
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors underlie the difference between the figure given by the Minister for Overseas Development, concerning the percentage of British aid that is tied,Official Report, 14 December, column 1298, and the figures for united British aid on table 32, page 220, of the OECD's 1990 report "Development and Co-operation".

  Mrs. Chalker
  The figure I gave in the House was based on gross public expenditure on overseas bilateral aid in 1989. The figure in the OECD report is based on new
  363
  commitments of bilateral official development assistance in 1988. The two figures thus relate to different years and to different measures of aid flows.

  Rihand Power Station
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the offer of aid and trade provision aid to support phase 2 of the Rihand power station in India has expired; and whether it will be renewed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  An offer of aid for stage II of the Rihand power station in India was made on 23 September 1988 subject to appraisal and approval of the project by the Overseas Development Administration. In subsequent exchanges with the Government of India, we have confirmed our interest and emphasised that approval of any aid funding would be subject to our satisfaction with the environmental, technical, financial and economic aspects of the project.

  Development Assistance
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will show, in table form(a) the level of United Kingdom official development assistance in 1979 and 1989, in current and in constant 1989 prices, (b) the size of the aid budget in 1979, and 1990, in current and in constant 1990 prices and (c) the total gross public expenditure on overseas aid in 1979 and 1989 in current and in constant 1989 prices in all cases showing the percentage change.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information is as follows:

  1979 £ million

  1989 £ million

  Percentage change on 1979

  1. Net Official Development Assistance

  Current prices

  1,016

  1,578

  + 55·3

  Constant 1989 prices

  2,099

  1,578

  -24·8

  2. Net Aid Programme

  Current Prices

  825

  1,562

  + 89·3

  Constant 1989 prices

  1,705

  1,562

  - 8·4

  3. Gross Public Expenditure

  Current prices

  939

  1,788

  + 90·4

  Constant 1989 prices

  1,940

  1,788

  - 7·8

  Figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  Source: British Aid Statistics. An explanatory note on the definitions appears on pp v-ix of the 1990 edition.

  Brazilian Amazon
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid money or other support has been given to the Indian co-ordinating group, CIOCA, in the Brazilian Amazon.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are not aware of the organisation referred to by the hon. Member.

  Aid Grants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many grants of less than £500,000 have been paid or allocated from the aid programme in 1989 and 1990; how many grants of less 364
  than £100,000 have been paid or allocated from the aid programme in 1989 and 1990; and how many of these have been for projects in the Amazon region.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Information is not available in the form requested by the hon. Lady. The relevant information that is readily available is as follows:

  Forty-nine new financial aid commitments of less than £500,000 were made in 1989—comparable information for 1990 is not yet available—of which 19 were less than £100,000. None was for the Amazon region. Technical co-operation projects and projects under the joint funding scheme are not included in these totals; but all technical co-operation projects in that region so far entered into during 1990 under the memorandum of understanding with the Brazilian Government are in excess of £500,000.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on guarantees on European investment bank lending entered into under the Lomé conventions and on the procedures for notifying Parliament of these guarantees.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have today laid before the House a minute giving details of such guarantees, and the procedure for notifying Parliament of them in the future. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  ISIS and the Institut Laue-Langevin
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's contribution to(a) the ISIS particle accelerator and (b) the Institut Laue-Langevin at Grenoble.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In the financial year 1990–91, the United Kingdom will contribute £10·4 million to ISIS, and £9·9 million to the Institut Laue-Langevin.

  Adult Relationships
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision is made within the core curriculum for preparation for marriage and adult relationships.

  Mr. Atkins
  Within the core curriculum, the national curriculum science order requires that pupils should know about the physical and emotional changes during adolescence and understand the need for responsible attitudes to sexual behaviour; the processes of human conception; and the factors necessary for the well-being of young children in the early stages of their development. More broadly, the National Curriculum Council has offered guidance to schools on the incorporation of such topics into the curriculum in its publications on cross-curricular themes: "Curriculum Guidance 5: Health Education" and "Curriculum Guidance 8: Education for Citizenship".

  Marriage Guidance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to increase the tuition on marriage guidance counselling included in medical training courses.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The content of the undergraduate medical curriculum is a matter for individual institutions in the light of recommendations from the education committee of the General Medical Council.

  Bedfordshire Schools
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total amount of moneys that his Department is allocating to Bedfordshire county council for the maintenance and repair of school buildings for the year 1991–92; what is the amount allocated in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Bedfordshire local education authority is to receive an annual capital guideline of £1·974 million in 1991–92, of which £1·833 million is related to schools, and an allocation of £0·6 million for projects at voluntary aided and special agreement schools. In the current year, Bedfordshire has received an ACG of £2·409 million—£2·309 million is related to schools—and an allocation for VA and SA schools of £15,000. The authority can also use capital receipts and other sources such of funding, including its revenue budget, to support capital expenditure. However, the Government do not allocate to LEAs separately identified recurrent funds for repairs and maintenance: it is for each authority, and, under local management, its schools, to determine what proportion of the total recurrent funds available to them to allocate for that purpose.

  Rural Schools Project
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the funding of the rural schools project.

  Mr. Fallon
  Since 1985 the Government have supported through education support grant expenditure totalling about £7·5 million on projects to improve the range and quality of the curriculum in rural schools in 14 local education authorities. In common with all education support grant programmes, support is limited to a finite period for these pilot projects. Support in 13 of the 14 local education authorities will have ceased by the end of the 1990–91 financial year. Because of a later start, support for Northumberland LEA will end in 1991–92. The programme is being evaluated by Leicester university with the aim of issuing to LEAs a report with recommendations by the end of this year.

  Soccer Commissioner
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to establish an independent soccer commissioner to oversee the workings of the existing football authorities.

  Mr. Atkins
  The administration of association football is a matter for the football authorities.

  Nottinghamshire County Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional(a) loan sanction and (b) grant has been granted to Nottinghamshire county council for education purposes for the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual capital guideline for education for Nottinghamshire in 1991–92 is £5·167 million. The authority's credit approval, which sets the limit for its borrowing for the year, is calculated for all services and is £15·891 million. The proposed revenue support grant for the charging authorities within the area of the authority for 1991–92 is £146·8 million. As this is paid in support of all services, it is not possible to specify how much supports education expenditure. In addition to this general support, over £7 million of Nottinghamshire's education expenditure is to be supported through specific grants from the programme of grants for education support and training.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the latest available figures, if he will set out for each local education authority(a) the level of expenditure on the youth service and (b) the standard spending assessment for the youth service.

  Mr. Atkins
  The latest year for which outturn expenditure is available is 1988–89. Table 1 shows the actual recurrent expenditure of each local education authority on youth and community services in 1988–89, with the exception of three authorities which failed to make a return. The standard spending assessment does not include a block of expenditure dedicated to the youth service alone, but makes allowance for this expenditure within the "other education services" block, which also allows for adult education. Table 2 shows the amount for each local education authority of the "other education services" block of the standard spending assessment for 1990–91.

  Table 1

  Expenditure by LEAs on the Youth Service, 1988–89

  LEA

  £ million

  Barking

  0·697

  Barnet

  0·966

  Bexley

  0·758

  Brent

  2·377

  Bromley

  0·894

  Croydon

  1·054

  Ealing

  1·804

  Enfield

  0·796

  Haringey

  n/a

  Harrow

  0·648

  Havering

  0·845

  Hillingdon

  1·018

  Hounslow

  0·737

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  0·580

  Merton

  0·459

  Newham

  1·104

  Redbridge

  1·078

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0·514

  Sutton

  0·517

  Waltham Forest

  1·336

  ILEA

  35·377

  Birmingham

  4·396

  Coventry

  1·095

  Dudley

  0·983

  Sandwell

  0·736

  Solihull

  0·430

  367

  LEA

  £ million

  Walsall

  2·305

  Wolverhampton

  2·070

  Knowsley

  0·666

  Liverpool

  2·392

  St. Helens

  0·328

  Sefton

  0·843

  Wirral

  1·512

  Bolton

  1·057

  Bury

  0·916

  Manchester

  n/a

  Oldham

  0·683

  Rochdale

  1·453

  Salford

  0·538

  Stockport

  0·598

  Tameside

  1149

  Trafford

  0·677

  Wigan

  0·876

  Barnsley

  0·551

  Doncaster

  1·305

  Rotherham

  1·029

  Sheffield

  3·038

  Bradford

  3·127

  Calderdale

  1·103

  Kirklees

  1·426

  Leeds

  6·860

  Wakefield

  n/a

  Gateshead

  0·722

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  0·659

  North Tyneside

  0·585

  South Tyneside

  1·855

  Sunderland

  1·010

  Isles of Scilly

  0·002

  Avon

  5·269

  Bedfordshire

  1·131

  Berkshire

  2·185

  Buckinghamshire

  2·370

  Cambridgeshire

  1·780

  Cheshire

  2·005

  Cleveland

  2·629

  Cornwall

  0·787

  Cumbria

  1·333

  Derbyshire

  5·066

  Devon

  2·913

  Dorset

  1·722

  Durham

  1·263

  East Sussex

  1·089

  Essex

  4·026

  Gloucestershire

  2·147

  Hampshire

  3·230

  Hereford and Worcester

  1·201

  Hertfordshire

  2·782

  Humberside

  3·839

  Isle of Wight

  0·467

  Kent

  2·708

  Lancashire

  5·179

  Leicestershire

  2·946

  Lincolnshire

  1·096

  Norfolk

  1·870

  North Yorkshire

  1·587

  Northamptonshire

  1·706

  Northumberland

  0·681

  Nottinghamshire

  5·233

  Oxfordshire

  1·325

  Salop

  1·788

  Somerset

  2·478

  Staffordshire

  2·599

  Suffolk

  2·124

  Surrey

  2·420

  Warwickshire

  1·434

  West Sussex

  1·599

  Wiltshire

  1·480

  Note.—The figures are based on LEA Expenditure Returns to the Department of the Environment
  368

  Table 2

  Other Services Block of the Education Component of the 1990–91 Standard Spending Assessments

  LEA

  £ million

  City of London

  0·081

  Camden

  5·737

  Greenwich

  5·051

  Hackney

  7·525

  Hammersmith

  4·896

  Islington

  5·645

  Kensington

  4·208

  Lambeth

  9·294

  Lewisham

  6·459

  Southwark

  7·312

  Tower Hamlets

  6·320

  Wandsworth

  7·677

  Westminster

  5·846

  Barking

  2·793

  Barnet

  5·742

  Bexley

  3·023

  Brent

  7·786

  Bromley

  4·418

  Croydon

  6·183

  Ealing

  7·454

  Enfield

  5·112

  Haringey

  6·023

  Harrow

  3·445

  Havering

  2·980

  Hillingdon

  3·555

  Hounslow

  3·935

  Kingston

  2·054

  Merton

  3·124

  Newham

  6·101

  Redbridge

  4·061

  Richmond

  2·568

  Sutton

  2·399

  Waltham Forest

  5·496

  Birmingham

  24·201

  Coventry

  5·951

  Dudley

  4·201

  Sandwell

  6·065

  Solihull

  2·705

  Walsall

  4·689

  Wolverhampton

  5·809

  Knowsley

  3·441

  Liverpool

  11·000

  St. Helens

  2·639

  Sefton

  4·588

  Wirral

  6·073

  Bolton

  4·503

  Bury

  2·394

  Manchester

  11·484

  Oldham

  3·877

  Rochdale

  3·647

  Salford

  4·445

  Stockport

  3·773

  Tameside

  3·511

  Trafford

  3·298

  Wigan

  4·072

  Barnsley

  3·194

  Doncaster

  4·502

  Rotherham

  3·805

  Sheffield

  8·883

  Bradford

  9·371

  Calderdale

  3·130

  Kirklees

  6·288

  Leeds

  11·675

  Wakefield

  4·273

  Gateshead

  3·286

  Newcastle

  5·581

  North Tyne

  2·920

  South Tyne

  2·812

  Sunderland

  5·018

  Isles of Scilly

  0·027

  Avon

  13·037

  Bedfordshire

  8·013

  Berkshire

  10·220

  Buckinghamshire

  8·074

  Cambridge

  7·944

  369

  LEA

  £ million

  Cheshire

  12·028

  Cleveland

  9·988

  Cornwall

  5·937

  Cumbria

  5·899

  Derbyshire

  12·082

  Devon

  13·235

  Dorset

  7·965

  Duham

  8·862

  East Sussex

  9·899

  Essex

  19·474

  Gloucestershire

  6·533

  Hampshire

  20·356

  Hereford and Worcester

  7·989

  Hertfordshire

  12·388

  Humberside

  13·047

  Isle of Wight

  1·720

  Kent

  19·977

  Lancashire

  21·194

  Leicester

  12·975

  Lincolnshire

  7·439

  Norfolk

  9·222

  North Yorkshire

  8·129

  Northamptonshire

  7·333

  Northumberland

  3·497

  Nottinghamshire

  15·882

  Oxfordshire

  6·885

  Shropshire

  5·184

  Somerset

  5·148

  Staffordshire

  12·762

  Suffolk

  7·114

  Surrey

  12·038

  Warwickshire

  6·040

  West Sussex

  8·410

  Wiltshire

  6·643

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has made any assessment of the likely administrative costs for individual local education authorities arising out of schools achieving grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  LEAs should be able to make savings on administration where schools become grant-maintained. The overall effect on the expenditure of the authority will depend on the extent to which they make such savings.

  Youth Work
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out, at 1990 prices, the level of support for voluntary organisations involved in youth work for 1987–88, 1988–89, 1089–90, and 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Department of Education and Science grants1 to voluntary youth organisations

  England

  £000s

  Financial Years

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Recurrent grants

  2,551·8

  2,350·0

  2,289·1

  2,301·0

  Capital grants

  976·3

  531·8

  397·2

  651·0

  Special grants2

  nil

  nil

  nil

  500·0

  Total

  3,528·1

  2,881·8

  2,686·3

  3,452·0

  1 In 1990 real terms, applying the GDP deflator as at November 1990.

  2 Interim funding of £500,000 per annum for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 to the headquarters of London wide education voluntary organisations following the abolition of the ILEA.

  Iraqi Students
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students from Iraq attended postgraduate courses at British universities and colleges of higher education in each of the years 1981 to 1990 inclusive.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of students from Iraq enrolled on post-graduate courses at British higher education institutions between 1980–81 and 1989–90 are as follows:

  Academic year

  Universities

  Polytechnics/ Colleges of Higher Education

  Total

  1980–81

  1,225

  —

  —

  1981–82

  1,153

  45

  1,198

  1982–83

  1,277

  54

  1,331

  1983–84

  980

  38

  1,018

  1984–85

  716

  37

  753

  1985–86

  656

  42

  698

  1986–87

  900

  51

  951

  1987–88

  892

  50

  942

  1988–89

  673

  51

  724

  1989–90

  405

  133

  —

  1 England and Scotland.

  No figure is available for the number of students in polytechnics and colleges in 1980–81 and information is not available yet on the number in these institutions in Wales in 1989–90.

  Geography
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish for consultation the draft order with attainment targets and programmes of study for geography in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have today published for consultation a draft order with an associated document setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for geography in the national curriculum for pupils aged five to 16, as I am required to do by section 20(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The draft order has been prepared following advice to me from the National Curriculum Council, in the light of its consultations on the proposals made by the former holder of my office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I am most grateful to the council for its advice.

  I have accepted the bulk of the council's recommendations for attainment targets and programmes of study as a basis for further consultation. The National Curriculum Council has recommended one major change to the structure of attainment targets in geography, reducing the total number of attainment targets from seven to five. I have accepted this change and believe that it will be helpful in reducing the assessment load on teachers.

  However, I consider that the attainment targets should emphasise more strongly knowledge and understanding of aspects of geography and put less emphasis on assessment of skills which, however desirable, are not particular to geography, and less emphasis on the assessment of pupils' exploration of attitudes and values. I also consider that,

  371
  for primary schools, the number of different places to be studied should be smaller than in the recommendations made to me. I have also made other minor changes to the Council's recommendations for attainment targets and programmes of study. Therefore, in accordance with section 20(5)(a)(ii) of the Education Reform Act 1988, I have published a statement of my reasons for departing from the council's advice. Copies have been placed in the Library, with the draft order.

  The draft order and documents do not provide for a short course for pupils at key stage 4 who are not taking a geography GCSE. The National Curriculum Council has advised me on this, but I have decided to consider this advice further, particularly with a view to securing maximum flexibility for schools in determining the nature of such short courses. However, it remains my intention that there should be provision within the national curriculum for pupils at key stage 4 to take short geography courses and I shall in due course bring forward a further draft order accordingly.

  The draft order for geography sets out a range of essential geographical skills; maintains the emphasis on pupils' knowledge and understanding about places which was a central feature of the proposals issued in June; and ensures that study of the environment remains central to the geography curriculum along with the study of physical and human geography.

  The period for consultation on the draft order will end on 15 February 1991. I intend to make the final order in March 1991 in good time for schools to begin teaching national curriculum geography to pupils aged five, seven and 11 from the following autumn. The draft order applies only to England. My right hon. Friend will be publishing separately for consultation a draft order for geography in Wales.

  History
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish for consultation the draft order with attainment targets and programmes of study for history in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have today published for consultation a draft order with an associated document setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for history in the National Curriculum for pupils aged five to 16, as I am required to do by section 20(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The draft order has been prepared on the basis of advice from the National Curriculum Council following consultation on the proposals made in July by the former holder of my office. The council's advice on attainment targets and programmes of study responds to a number of proposals and requests made by my predecessor. En the light of that advice, the proposed number of attainment targets has been reduced from four to three. The programmes of study are now set out in a simpler format, and are less detailed and prescriptive. The proposed core course of study for pupils aged 14 to 16 has also been redesigned by the NCC, along the lines indicated by my predecessor.

  I have made certain further changes, as explained in the letter to those being consulted, to make it clear that the focus of study of this unit should be the first half of the
  372
  twentieth century. I believe that it is right to draw some distinction between the study of history and the study of current affairs.

  The curriculum requirements I am now proposing in this final stage of consultation will provide a sound basis for the acquisition of knowledge and understanding of British, European and world history. The attainment targets will ensure that knowledge, understanding and skills are rigorously assessed. The programmes of study will provide a clear framework of historical content to be taught while leaving teachers a degree of freedom in the design of schemes of work. I believe that this represents the successful outcome of a long period of consultation and public debate.

  The period of consultation on the draft order will end on 15 February 1991. I intend to make the final order in March 1991 in good time for the schools to begin teaching national curriculum history to pupils aged five, seven and 11 from the following autumn.

  The draft order applies only to England. My right hon. Friend will be publishing separately for consultation a draft order for history in Wales.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the research establishments and projects respectively which have been granted moneys from the Agricultural and Food Research Council; and if he will list the amounts involved.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 20 December 1990]: The research institutes that have received grants from the AFRC to meet recurrent and capital expenditure in the year to 31 March 1991 are as follows, the amount of the grants also being shown:

  £'000

  Institute of Arable Crops Research

  11,235

  Institute of Animal Health

  15,711

  Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research

  12,382

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research

  10,512

  Horticulture Research International

  9,868

  Institute of Plant Science Research

  6,114

  Institute of Food Research

  16,249

  Institute of Engineering Research

  4,729

  The AFRC currently makes approximately 1,069 research grants to some 64 higher education institutions, totalling approximately £52 million, of which about £15 million is allocated per annum. Full details are given in a detailed print out which I am sending to the hon. Member. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Further information relating to projects undertaken in AFRC institutes and higher education institutions supported by AFRC is included in the AFRC handbook 1990, copies of which have also been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Traffic Fines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention to allow London borough councils to retain fine income from local road traffic offences to pay for improvements in road traffic schemes in their areas.
  373
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Revenue from fines for road traffic offences, like the revenue from other criminal penalties, is paid into the Consolidated Fund. However, the Road Traffic Bill provides that contravention of certain orders relating to parking places in London should no longer be a criminal offence and that local authorities should assume responsibility for enforcing these parking controls. Under the Bill, local authorities would retain income collected by way of penalty charges for infringements and would be able to use it for specified parking and traffic related purposes.

  Magistrates Courts (Staff)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to extend the remit of the Parliamentary Commission for Administration to include investigation of complaints against magistrates courts staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have not yet reached decisions on the future organisation of the service in the light of the report of the magistrates' courts scrutiny. It would not be sensible to consider the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in relation to magistrates courts service staff separately from the broader organisation issues.

  Taylor Report
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has immediate plans to implement the Taylor report; and if he has discussed with the Football League and Football Association the effects arising from the non-implementation of the report.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Lord Justice Taylor's final report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster made 76 specific recommendations, the great majority of which have now been implemented by the responsible authorities.

  We have made it clear that the primary responsibility for the reduction of standing accommodation at football league grounds in accordance with the timetable proposed by Lord Justice Taylor rests with the clubs themselves. We have also indicated to the Football League and to the Football Association that we are prepared to accept variations from the interim timetable recommended by Lord Justice Taylor provided that there is realistic progress towards the dates by which the use of standing accommodation should be discontinued. We shall look to the Football Licensing Authority to advise us, in due course, whether progress towards all seated accommodation is satisfactory. The football authorities are well aware that enforcement powers are available, if it is not.

  Mr. R. Jerrard
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the entitlement of Mr. R. Jerrard of Warwick for a long service and good conduct medal as an inspector in the City of London police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The royal warrant which instituted the long service and good conduct medal offers no scope for discretion to award the medal to anyone who has served less than 22 years police service.

  Overseas Electors
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, on Tuesday 18 December,Official Report, columns 102–3, if he will now give the total number of overseas electors included in the 1991–92 register published by individual electoral registration officers on 28 November, together with numbers for each constituency and for each region of Scotland and county in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on the number of overseas electors included in the draft electoral register is still being collated. We shall shortly make the figures known to the House.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of people in each of the 32 London boroughs who have been summonsed for the non-payment of the community charge.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not available centrally on the number of people in each London borough who have been summonsed for non-payment of the community charge. However, the table shows the number of summonses heard at magistrates courts in the London area from April to September 1990, the latest date for which the information is available.

  Number of community charge summonses heard at magistrates courts in the London area April-September 1990

  Magistrates court

  Summonses

  City of London

  Guildhall justice room

  76

  Inner London

  Hampstead

  1,500

  Horseferry Road

  2,962

  South Western

  1,671

  Thames

  3,070

  Outer London

  Barking

  33

  Barnet/Hendon

  86

  Bromley

  7,187

  Croydon

  14,212

  Ealing/Acton

  590

  Enfield

  3,764

  Havering

  12

  Feltham/Brentford

  209

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  7,679

  Wimbledon

  422

  Stratford/West Ham

  6,600

  Redbridge

  575

  Sutton

  8,533

  Waltham Forest

  853

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of people who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment by courts covering the Greater London area who have been summonsed for the non-payment of their community charge.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information for 1990 is not yet available.

  Police Training
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training has been given by United Kingdom police officers to police officers in the Punjab region of India in the last five years to date; what training has been received by police officers from the Punjab in the United Kingdom over the same period; what was the nature of such training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no central record of any training having been given by United Kingdom police officers to police officers in India in the last five years.

  Central records, which do not distinguish between officers from the Punjab and those from other parts of India, show that the following visits were made by Indian police officers to the United Kingdom for training purposes over this period.

  1986
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police to discuss its organisation and structure.

  1987
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police to discuss training.
  Two officers visited the Metropolitan Police, Ashford Police Training Centre and the Police Staff College, Bramshill.
  One officer was attached to the Metropolitan Police and the Police Staff College to study training management.

  1988
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police and the Police Staff College to discuss training.
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police to discuss the day-to-day operation of a police station.
  One officer visited the Home Office, Metropolitan and West Midlands Police to discuss counter-terrorism.
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police to discuss the ability of the police to handle new problems.

  1989
  Two officers undertook a training attachment with the Police Staff College, and the West Yorkshire and Metropolitan Police forces.
  Four officers visited the Metropolitan Police CID Training School at Hendon.
  Two officers visited the Metropolitan Police to discuss VIP security.
  Four officers undertook a Criminal Records Computerisation Course at Merseyside and subsequent attachment to the Police National Computer Organisation.
  One officer visited the Police Staff College, Metropolitan Police, Lancashire Constabulary, Kent Constabulary and West Yorkshire Police to discuss recruitment, training, promotion, computers, drugs and terrorism.
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police to discuss training methods and courses.

  1990
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police to discuss the ways in which the police assist the courts.
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police and Ashford Police Training Centre to discuss anti-terrorist and general police training.
  One officer attended the Overseas Command Course, Police Staff College, Bramshill.

  In addition, in each of the last five years, 10 officers from the Indian police service have attended a specially designed overseas command course at West Yorkshire police force training school.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training has been given by United Kingdom police officers to police officers in Sri Lanka in the last five years to date; what training has been received by Sri Lankan police officers in the United Kingdom over the same period; what was the nature of such training; and if he will make a statement.
  376
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no central record of any training having been given by United Kingdom police officers to police officers in Sri Lanka in the last five years, although a detective inspector from the Metropolitan police went to Sri Lanka in 1987 for a short advisory visit.

  Central records show that the following visits were made by Sri Lankan police officers to the United Kingdom for training purposes over this period.

  1986
  Two officers attended the Overseas Command Course at the Police Staff College, Bramshill.

  1987
  None.

  1988
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police to discuss drugs and new methods of fighting crime.
  One officer attended a traffic management course with Lancashire Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police.
  Two officers were attached to the Metropolitan Police to discuss VIP security.

  1989
  One officer visited the Home Office to discuss the right to silence.
  One officer visited the Police Staff College, Bramshill, to discuss police training.
  One officer visited the Metropolitan Police to discuss taxi licensing.
  Two officers visited the Home Office, Metropolitan and Essex Police forces to discuss computers in police work.
  Two officers attended the Overseas Command Course, Police Staff College, Bramshill.

  1990
  One officer attended a VIP Security Course at Lancashire Constabulary.
  One officer attended the Overseas Command Course, Police Staff College, Bramshill.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he now proposes to take to improve the facilities for women prison officers who are now working at Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A number of toilets and showers have been designated for the use of female staff only. Current redevelopment will also permit the incorporation of dedicated female toilets, showers and changing rooms in the reception area and hospital wing in spring 1991. Additional facilities for women staff will come into use in 1992 when the current refurbishment of D wing is complete. All of these developments have been agreed following consultations at HM prison Wandsworth.

  Police Medals
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in the past 10 years failed to qualify for long service and good conduct medals because their official retirement date fell within two weeks of the qualifying period; and how many exceptions have been granted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Immigration
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position on immigration, visas and asylum being determined by a European union, following the agreement at the European Council that the issue be considered; and when these issues will be considered by an intergovernmental conference.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The conclusion of the European Council was that consideration should be given to whether and how activities currently conducted in an intergovernmental framework could be"brought within the ambit of the Union".
  Immigration, visas and asylum were cited as examples of matters which might be considered for such treatment.

  This part of the European Council's conclusions is clearly distinguished from the part relating to possible extensions of Community competence. We do not believe, and it is not envisaged, that immigration, visas and asylum matters should be brought within the Treaty of Rome.

  The intergovernmental conference on political union is now under way and the Government will play a full part in the discussions. It is not yet clear at what stage particular individual items will be considered.

  Television Licence Fee
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will announce the findings of the independent consultancy on the level of the television licence fee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Following a recommendation of the Peacock committee in 1986 (Cmnd. 9824), for the three years April 1988 to April 1990 the television licence fee was increased annually in line with changes in the retail prices index. My right hon. Friend, Lord Waddington announced on 11 October 1990 that he had appointed Price Waterhouse as independent consultants to help set the level of the fee from April 1991 onwards. They were asked to assess how future increases in the fee could be set below the level of inflation measured by the RPI, and the consequences of a range of formulas for such increases, while maintaining the BBC's "cornerstone" role in British broadcasting.

  Price Waterhouse reported to me in mid December, and the management summary of its report is being published today by HMSO. The remainder will not be released since it contains commercially sensitive material.

  The consultants concluded that, while maintaining the present level of service, the BBC would be able to make financial improvements totalling £203 million over the five years from 1991 to 1996. These comprise £72 million in extra revenue and £131 million in savings. In addition, the BBC is required to make savings of £180 million to finance its expected future deficit. The Price Waterhouse report has been discussed with the consultants and the BBC and I am satisfied that improvements of this order are achievable. I therefore believe that, in the interests of licence fee payers, who require a licence if they wish to watch a public television service, the fee should now be held below the level of the RPI increase.

  Price Waterhouse suggested two ways of doing this, both with the same net effect over five years. I have decided that its proposal to set the April 1991 increase at 3 per cent. below RPI, with annual increases at RPI over the
  378
  subsequent four years is the better of the two methods. I intend, however, to reassess the position in three years' time, taking the opportunity to review the BBC's progress in achieving efficiency gains and further developing alternative sources of revenue. Price Waterhouse has also made some further suggestions to me about the operation of the licence fee, and I will also consider within the same time scale whether they should be implemented. The longer-term future of the licence fee as the principal means of financing the BBC will be considered as part of the review of the present charter which will be necessary before its expiry in December 1996.

  The licence fee increase each April has been calculated on the basis of the annual increase in RPI in the 12 months up to the preceding September, in the same way as increases in pensions and other state benefits. The RPI figure for September 1990 was 10·9 per cent., and applying an RPI-3 per cent. factor of 7·9 per cent. to the unrounded 1990 figures leads to new fees from 1 April 1991 of £77 for a colour licence and £25·50 for a monochrome licence. The necessary regulations will be laid before the House in due course.

THE ARTS

  Welsh National Opera
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the sums of money from all sources which he is making available directly from his Department or in conjunction with others to the Welsh National Opera in the present financial year; what was the comparable figure in 1989–90; and if he will list the projected figures for 1991–92 and subsequent years insofar as firm or tentative projections have been made.

  Mr. Renton
  The Welsh National Opera is funded jointly by the Arts Council of Great Britain and the Welsh Arts Council. The information requested is as follows:

  £'000s

  ACGB

  WAC

  1989–90

  2,669

  1,791

  1990–91

  2,935

  1,972

  1991–92

  13,100

  2,130

  1 Provisional allocation.

  Levels of funding for future years have yet to be determined.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions have taken place between his officials and the Welsh National Opera about finances; what differences have arisen over the financial contribution of the Government to the Welsh National Opera; and what differences still remain.

  Mr. Renton
  The funding of the Welsh National Opera is a matter for the Arts Council of Great Britain and the Welsh Arts Council. The chairman of the ACGB met the chairman and members of the board of the WNO on 8 January to discuss the company's current financial position. I understand that the meeting was helpful and constructive. Further detailed discussions are being arranged between the two funding bodies and the company, with the intention of achieving a mutually acceptable outcome. I very much welcome this positive development.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hereditary Baronetcy Awards
  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy with regard to the considerations which he takes into account before making any recommendation for the award of a hereditary baronetcy; when this policy last changed; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It was the policy of my predecessor to consider recommending hereditary honours in exceptional cases. I propose to follow a similar practice.

  European Community
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what treaty amendments are being considered for submission to the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  The Conclusions of the Rome European Councils on 27 and 28 October and on 14 and 15 December listed a number of areas where treaty revision would be considered in the context of the intergovernmental conferences on political union and EMU.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the Montgomery constituency to receive representations concerning housing for young people in rural areas.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no present plans to visit Montgomeryshire. Close partnership between local authorities, housing associations and the private sector is essential in securing appropriate housing for young people, as for others, in rural areas. Housing for Wales is giving strong assistance by devoting 25 per cent. of its programme to rural areas; its survey of housing and young people in rural Wales will help to target future investment.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to change the procedure for applying for export licences where there is a defence implication; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on 29 November 1990 at columns 1060–61.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply on 17 December,Official Report, column 15, if he will publish the guidance given to departmental Ministers regarding the use of publicity and advertising paid for by public funds.

  The Prime Minister
  The conventions on Government publicity and advertising have already been published. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on 28 June 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) at column 311.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Community
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what distinctions are drawn in policy between defence and security in the context of negotiations on extending the competence of the EC.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Twelve already discuss some aspects of security within the framework of European political co-operation. As part of the process of closer foreign policy co-ordination among the Twelve, we see scope to develop this further, but would not support the extension of Community competence into this area. Defence itself—the planning, organisation, command, control and commitment of military forces—is one aspect of broader security policy. We believe that NATO should remain the main forum for consultation on defence matters affecting the alliance as a whole. Closer European co-operation on defence could be achieved by strengthening the Western European Union.

  Khmer Rouge
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose in the United Nations Security Council a ban on the movement of arms and logistic support to the Khmer Rouge by whatever route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Nations Security Council resolution 668 of 20 September 1990 endorsed the framework for a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodia conflict, an integral element of which is the cessation of outside military assistance to all Cambodian parties.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call on the Chinese Government to end their support for the Khmer Rouge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 17 December to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will halt all British support in whatever form, direct or indirect, to the Khmer Rouge and its allies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) of 17 December. We have never given and will never give support of any kind to the Khmer Rouge.

  Iraq
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Iraqi diplomats have left the United Kingdom at the request of Her Majesty's Government; and on what dates in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following members of Iraqi embassy staff have been requested by Her Majesty's Government to leave the United Kingdom.
  381
  1988: Four—one on 30 September 1988

  —three on 29 October 1988.

  1989: None.

  1990: 11—Six on 17 September 1990

  —four on 19 September 1990

  —one on 10 November 1990

  1991: 9—3 January 1991.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British diplomats have left Iraq at the request of the Iraqi authorities; and on what dates in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Seven members of the British embassy in Baghdad have been declared persona non grata in the past three years; four in October 1988, two in September 1990 and one in November 1990.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of Her Majesty's diplomatic corps are currently accredited to the British embassy in Baghdad.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have recalled our ambassador in Baghdad and the remaining members of his staff for consultations.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representatives of the Government of Iraq are currently accredited to the embassy of Iraq in London.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Fifteen diplomatic agents; twelve administrative and technical staff; five service staff.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the Government of Thailand in their efforts to make peace with the Cambodian Government and to remove Khmer Rouge bases from Thai soil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We support all constructive efforts to achieve peace in Cambodia. Thailand has played a helpful part in recent efforts to establish a functioning Supreme National Council and remains a key regional player in the search for a comprehensive settlement of the Cambodian conflict.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom will now deal with the Government of Hun Sen as the legitimate Government of Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In my reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), of 17 December, I reaffirmed our willingness to talk to representatives of the Hun Sen regime to urge them to co-operate in restoring peace to Cambodia on the basis of the five's framework. Accordingly, on 22 December the head of the south-east Asian Department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office met a Cambodian Vice-Minister, Mr. Uch Kiman, in Paris. This meeting did not constitute formal dealings with the Hun Sen regime as the legitimate Government of Cambodia.

  Corfu Channel Incident
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are currently being taken to settle outstanding financial questions relating to the Corfu channel incident of 1946.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British and Albanian officials met in Geneva on 18 and 19 December to discuss outstanding bilateral issues.

  Albania
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are currently being taken to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Socialist Republic of Albania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British and Albanian officials met in Geneva on 18 and 19 December to discuss outstanding bilateral issues, including the restoration of diplomatic relations.

  Mr. Tariq Aziz
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons he has opposed the visit of Tariq Aziz to meet EEC representatives in Rome.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 4 December the Foreign Minister of the European Community invited the Iraqi Foreign Minister to meet the presidency following his meeting with the United States Secretary of State. This invitation has been renewed several times, most recently after the EPC ministerial meeting in Luxembourg on 4 January, but has been declined by the Iraqi Government.

  E1 Salvador
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage the Government of E1 Salvador to accept the United Nations peace proposal.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have frequently made clear to all sides in E1 Salvador the importance we and the international community attach to a successful outcome of the peace talks under the auspices of the United Nations. We condemn the renewed offensive by the FMLN at the end of last year.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of maps delineating the precise border, with all co-ordinates, which existed between Iraq and Kuwait after each significant alteration since their establishment in international law; and if he will place a copy of each relevant treaty, agreement or draft agreement to which the United Kingdom was a party which is relevant to the establishment of that border.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Extracts from the Anglo-Turkish convention of 1913, and copies of letters by the Prime Minister of Iraq and the Sheikh of Kuwait in 1932 confirming recognition of the Iraq-Kuwait frontiers, are being placed in the Library of the House. A map attached to the 1913 convention may be examined at the Public Records Office.
  383
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations have been made by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the eventuality of war in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am replying in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is chairman of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

  The answer is none. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is responsible for commemorating and caring for the graves of those who died while serving in the armed forces of the Commonwealth during the first and second world wars.

  Romanian Orphans
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the voluntary organisations known to be providing aid to Romanian orphans and the amount of aid, if known; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We do not have details of all British voluntary aid to Romanian children, but we are aware of a number of the organisation concerned. I shall write to my hon. Friend with a list. We have no information about the amount of aid. We fully support all efforts to improve conditions for children in Romania.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to ensure that India respects the human rights of people who are now living in the Indian occupied area of Kashmir before any aid allocation to India is considered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The importance we attach to "good government" when considering our aid programme is well known. While we support the Indian Government's efforts to deal with the serious challenge from terrorist violence in Kashmir, we have regularly made clear to them our concern that human rights must be respected.

  European Community Ombudsman
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the views of Her Majesty's Government on the concept of a Community ombudsman to protect the rights of citizens in the EC, following the agreement of the European Council that the matter should be examined, and on the matters which will be considered in relation to the particular problems in some member states.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Suggestions have been made by other member states for establishing a European Community ombudsman. These will be discussed in the intergovernmental conference. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in the debate on 11 June last year, we will examine this idea sympathetically, on condition that it does not duplicate or overlap with member states' existing arrangements and provides a service of value to the individual citizen without creating unnecessary bureaucracy.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the results of the investigation by Customs and Excise into licences granted to Matrix Churchill for sales of machine tools to Iraq; and if he will place a copy of the results, when completed, in the Library.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Investigation of possible export licensing offences is a matter for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, acting in their independent law enforcement capacity. They carry out their inquiries thoroughly and expeditiously. It would not be appropriate for information relating to an investigation to be made public other than in the course of court proceedings.

  EC Support Framework
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the 1990 allocation of the Community support framework for operational programmes 3 and 4 from the Commission of the European Community was received by his Department; and if it is currently attracting interest payments.

  Mr. Maude
  The United Kingdom's contribution to the Community budget is paid into a Community account held in the United Kingdom, from which payments to the United Kingdom are also usually made. For the structural funds' objective 3 and 4 programmes, EC payments to the United Kingdom follow the pattern of our other budget receipts. On authorisation by the Commission from time to time, the sums are withdrawn from the Community's account in the United Kingdom and paid to the sponsor department for onward transmission to end recipients. Payments for objective 3 and 4 programmes have therefore been made by the Treasury when authorised by the Commission; and subsequently by Departments when they have been vetted. The United Kingdom derives the benefit from any balance on the Community's account which the Commission has not authorised to be paid for any particular purpose.

  Expatriates (Middle East)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the position of British expatriates presently working in the middle east in the event of any forceable repatriation of such individuals with respect to the conditions pertaining to their exemption from British taxation for the period of their repatriation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 18 December 1990, at column 111.

  VAT
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what vehicle of decision making within the EEC is to be used to complete proceedings to achieve approximation of the VAT system and excise duties within the EEC to satisfy the requirements of a true internal market; and for what reasons Her Majesty's Government agreed that the proceedings should be completed in the near future.
  385
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The vehicle within the EC for deciding the arrangements for the operation of the VAT and excise systems after 1992 is the EC's Economic and Financial Affairs Council—ECOFIN—acting unanimously on proposals from the Commission.

  Following extensive consultations with representatives of British industry, on 12 December 1990 the United Kingdom lifted its reserve on an outline agreement for the VAT control system to operate after 1992. Also, at ECOFIN on 17 December agreement was reached on the general principles which will form the basis of the system for excise controls after 1992. These have cleared the way for discussions on the details of the systems, early agreement on which is essential for businesses and tax administrations to have sufficient time to plan and implement technical changes.

  The Government believe that the framework arrangements on the VAT and excise technical systems meet the requirement to remove fiscal frontiers by 1 January 1993, which is a key part of completing the single market. The Government remain of the view that centrally determined tax approximation is neither necessary nor desirable and that market forces can bring about such convergence of indirect tax rates as is necessary.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long it takes the Customs and Excise to process VAT registered trade importation packages from overseas; what is the normal expected delay before passing valuable goods packages to the Post Office, and what is the process in the case of VAT-exempt goods of more than 100 years old.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  All packages imported through the post remain under the control of the Post Office and are presented by them to customs for clearance. Clearance times vary according to the nature and origin of the contents and the quality of accompanying information. Importers are notified of the arrival of all goods exceeding £2,000 in value, or £1,300 in the case of Datapost packages, and they are required to submit a formal entry. On receipt of that entry by customs, clearance is normally effected without delay. Where relief from customs duty and VAT is claimed in respect of goods of any value over 100 years old a separate declaration by the importer is necessary. Subsequent action will depend upon the nature of the declaration made and supporting evidence produced.

  Local Authority Borrowing
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the economic implications of central Government control of local authority capital borrowing.

  Mr. Mellor
  Central Government control over local authority borrowing for capital purposes forms an important part of the overall system of public expenditure control, and is therefore essential to the economic health of the country. This control also reduces the risk that community chargepayers may face excessive debt interest payments and that an excessive burden of debt may prevent local authorities from maintaining adequate and efficient services.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the effective upper and lower limits which sterling is permitted to move to by comparison with the deutschemark within the ERM; and if he will publish a table showing the movement of sterling since joining the ERM.

  Mr. Maples
  Sterling's upper and lower limits in the ERM against the deutschemark are DM 3·132 and DM 2·778 respectively. Sterling's effective upper and lower limits against the deutschemark are determined by the need for sterling to remain within its bilateral limits against all other ERM currencies simultaneously. The effective upper limit against the deutschemark is the rate at which sterling would reach its upper limit against the weakest ERM currency. The effective lower limit is determined by sterling's position against the strongest currency in the system. The effective limits vary over time in line with the movements of exchange rates within the system.

  Sterling's movements against the deutschemark since its entry to the ERM are as follows:

  Average exchange rate week commencing

  DM/£

  1990

  October 8

  3·013

  15

  2·963

  22

  2·955

  29

  2·950

  November 5

  2·933

  12

  2·901

  19

  2·911

  26

  2·925

  December 3

  2·894

  10

  2·872

  17

  2·872

  24

  2·884

  1991

  January 12

  2·909

  7

  2·9205

  1 Week commencing Wednesday 2 January.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider withdrawing sterling from the ERM; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  No.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 19 and 20 December.

  Mr. Gummer
  Together with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Scottish Office, Lord Strathclyde, I attended the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 19 and 20 December 1990.

  Once again, after a considerable struggle, we obtained recognition of our Hague preference for all the stocks

  387
  where it was relevant and secured flexibility to take both an increased quantity of western mackerel east of 4 west and an extension to the area in which it may be taken.

  We also secured increases in the United Kingdom quotas proposed by the Commission for 26 of the 49 stocks of interest to our fleet. As a result we now have increases in 13 quotas compared to 1990 with 21 quotas remaining the same. The increases in the cod and haddock quota proposals in the North sea, for whiting and cod in the Irish sea and for a number of plaice and sole quotas in the channel and the south-west will be particularly welcome to the industry. We have however sought to avoid any increases which would not be in accordance with conservation needs.

  In addition, we secured a very useful quota swap arrangement with the Netherlands so obtaining all the Dutch quotas in area VII as well as some North sea herring and sole.

  Given the state of the North sea and west of Scotland cod and haddock stocks it was essential to take action to reduce effort. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea had made clear that, by themselves, TACs and quotas could not be relied upon to achieve this. Accordingly the Council agreed to an eight-day tie-up rule for vessels which have taken significant quantities of these stocks. I was disappointed that we could not secure an arrangement which would allow fishermen the alternative of using more selective gear. I put on record at the Council that I would be pursuing this and I received a helpful response from the Commissioner.

  We fought for improved technical conservation measures. We made it clear that we were prepared to agree to an increase in mesh size in the North sea and west of Scotland to 100mm diamond with a 90mm square mesh panel. We regret that, because some member states did not want their fishermen to be affected, the Council could not agree to this. However, we secured agreement that the Council must return to this issue in the near future and in order to provide further evidence to the other member states we will be commissioning more research on the use of different mesh sizes and square mesh panels, together with further research on whiting.

  We are encouraged by such experience as we already have where practical fishermen have put square mesh panels into practice and have liked the result. This is exactly the kind of conservation measure which ought to be put into practice along with TACs and which the Council has failed to adopt. We shall now be consulting with our industry about introducing unilaterally a 90mm square mesh panel. This will be important in protecting the 1990 year class of haddock.

  Amendments to EC regulation 4028/86 on fisheries structures were agreed which include the extension of grant aid to boats less than 9 metres and measures to encourage EC boats to fish in third country waters. Changes were made at the Council meeting to the proposed rates of grant for these measures to reflect the overcapacity in the EC fleet.

  On autonomous tariff quotas a balanced package was achieved which should assist the processors including a tariff suspension at 10 per cent. for hake and alaska pollack fillet blocks.

  Overall, although I regret that the Council could not agree on technical conservation measures I consider that
  388
  we have secured a package which is consistent with conservation of the stocks and which should benefit catchers, processors and consumers.

  Cod
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the implications for likely cod landings at Lowestoft in 1991 of invoking the Hague preference for cod.

  Mr. Curry
  The Hague preference has not been invoked for North sea cod.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the allocation of cod quotas from the middle to end of December; and what distributions were made between Scottish and English fisheries and between sector and non-sector.

  Mr. Curry
  There are four United Kingdom cod fisheries. Fishing for North sea cod by all licensed United Kingdom fishing vessels was suspended on Saturday 15 December 1990, following exhaustion of the licensed fleet's share of the United Kingdom quota. Fishing by unlicensed under 10 m vessels continued in this fishery until the end of the month. Fishing for west of Scotland cod by all United Kingdom fishing vessels was prohibited on 5 December 1990, following exhaustion of the entire United Kingdom quota. The Irish sea cod fishery remained open for the whole of December, both to those English and Northern Irish producer organisations with sectoral allocations, and to all other vessels with the necessary licence subject to a 2 tonnes per vessel per month catch restriction. The channel cod fishery, in which there were no sectoral allocations in 1990, also remained open to all appropriately licensed vessels throughout December, subject to a 5 tonnes per vessel per month catch restriction.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what redress he expects to make in 1991 to English fishermen who fished within quota for 1990; and what sanctions against those who overfished in 1990 he plans to take.

  Mr. Curry
  Arrangements for penalties and compensation to apply to overfishing in 1990 have already been agreed with the industry. Under these arrangements, where a group exceeded its allocation in 1990, the overfish will not be included in track records when calculating the 1991 allocation. Where that overfish led to the United Kingdom quota being exceeded, and other groups being disadvantaged by the early closure of a fishery, the overfish will be deducted from the offending group's 1991 allocation. This deduction will then be used to compensate groups prejudiced by the overfishing, after taking account of those groups' likely uptake had the fishery not been closed.

  North Sea Sole
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's role in collection of data which led to the closure of the North sea sole fishery in November.
  389
  Mr. Curry
  The closure of the North sea sole fishery in November 1990 was due to a combination of factors. They included increased effort in the fishery, an increase in the size of fish caught as a result of earlier conservation measures, and increased landings abroad as well as a delay in some landing data appearing on Departments' central computers.

  Milk Marketing Scheme
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the report of the Consumers' Committee for England and Wales on the milk marketing scheme 1933.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department has of undersized cod, plaice and sole being landed and sold at fishing ports in the Netherlands.

  Mr. Curry
  The enforcement of EC fisheries regulations in the Netherlands is a matter for the Dutch authorities. The EC Commission's inspectorate monitors enforcement arrangements in member states, but I have no information about the landing and sale of undersized fish in the Netherlands.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on how his Department informs fishing organisations, companies and individuals on sudden unexpected changes in the fishing regime around United Kingdom ports in general, and Lowestoft in particular.

  Mr. Curry
  Changes to fisheries management measures are publicised by means of a news release issued to the trade press, and at the same time Fisheries Departments write to national and local fishing organisations. Local fisheries officers also make every effort to inform fishermen in their area individually. Variations to fishing licences are issued by local port offices as soon as possible after the announcement.

  Small Family Farms
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food if he will make a statement on his assessment of the implication for the future of the small family farm of the GATT discussions.

  Mr. Curry
  The Community offer on agricultural reform remains under negotiation in the GATT round. It is premature to forecast the final agreement or its impact. The Commission has given an undertaking to make proposals for changes in agricultural support, consistent with a GATT agreement, aimed at ensuring a viable future for Community farmers.

  Sheep Farmers (Subsidies)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals to decouple subsidies to sheep farmers from farm production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Support to sheep farmers in the United Kingdom is provided primarily through the EC sheep 390
  regime and the system of hill livestock compensatory allowances, which are also governed by EC regulations. Any proposals fundamentally to change the basis on which this support is granted would, therefore, be a matter for the European Commission.

  Cereals
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to ensure that S.I. (1975) No. 655, the Measurement of Cereals for Import and Export Purposes Regulations 1975, is conformed to by the intervention board.

  Mr. Curry
  The Measurement of Cereals for Import and Export Purposes Regulations 1975 (S.I. 1975 No. 655) lay down certain provisions in relation to trade in cereals between the United Kingdom and other member states of the European Community. The intervetion board does not engage in intra-Community trade in cereals and the regulations are not considered relevant to its operations.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the expected impact of the food aid programme for the Soviet Union agreed at the European Council on 15 December 1990, on planned EC spending on agriculture.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Council agreed to supply 250 million ecu—£174 million—of food aid to the USSR. This will be funded from the underspend in the 1990 European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund guarantee budget. No decision has been made on the type and quantities of food involved and it is not yet possible to assess any other effects on Community agricultural expenditure.

  Farming Incomes
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on trends in farming incomes.

  Mr. Curry
  Forecasts of farm incomes in 1990 will be published in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" later this month.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions he has reached in his review of the Government's policy on the control of salmonella.

  Mr. Gummer
  In 1989 the Government introduced a comprehensive programme for tackling the problem of salmonella in poultry and eggs. This programme has been effective in reducing potential sources of infection and will be maintained. I have made it clear, however, that the detailed form of control would be kept under careful review in the light of developing knowledge and experience. This has been done, taking into account the views of the Department of Health and the public health laboratory service.

  The Government measures are aimed at reducing infection throughout the production chain, from the supply of feedingstuffs to the production of healthy breeding stock and controls on laying flocks. This

  391
  integrated approach is the best means of minimising the risk of infection in all types of poultry flocks and will continue.

  The measures on feedingstuffs include statutory controls on the production of animal protein, which require regular sampling of feed and reprocessing if any salmonella is found. Rigorous controls are also applied to imports of animal protein. In addition the feed industry operate codes of practice aimed at ensuring that their products are free of salmonella.

  The programme for controlling salmonella in breeding flocks concentrates in particular on monitoring of progeny through the hatcheries and the slaughter of infected breeding stock, both in the egg production and poultry meat sectors, in order to minimise the risk of transmission of infection to production flocks. Through the application of these measures to date 35 broiler breeder flocks and five layer breeder flocks have been compulsorily slaughtered with payment of compensation. These arrangements will continue unchanged.

  In relation to commercial flocks producing eggs for human consumption, I have reviewed carefully information from the state veterinary service and the public health laboratory service on the incidence of infection and trends in human food poisoning. It is clear that a continued distinction needs to be drawn between the many different types of salmonella. From the start the Government measures have concentrated on two particular types which had been considered a potential risk to human health, while retaining the flexibility to alter the coverage of the programme in the light of further evidence on the risk from different types of salmonella.

  One of these types, salmonella enteritidis, was responsible for the increase in human food poisoning cases which led to the introduction of the Government measures. Data from laboratory testing indicate that the incidence of salmonella enteritidis in the commercial laying sector has subsequently dropped significantly. However, salmonella enteritidis remains a significant cause of human food poisoning. I have therefore concluded that it remains essential to maintain the compulsory slaughter programme for all laying flocks which are infected with salmonella enteritidis. The other type which has hitherto been treated in the same way is salmonella typhimurium. In the light of further scientific data I have concluded that the arrangements for dealing with this type in relation to laying flocks should be modified. The Chief Medical Officer agrees with this view.

  Evidence from the public health laboratory service indicates that the number of cases of salmonella typhimurium food poisoning in humans has fallen significantly over the last year and the number of outbreaks of salmonella typhimurium food poisoning linked to eggs is now extremely low. Unlike salmonella enteritidis, this type is not predominantly associated with poultry but is frequently found in the environment and in other animal species. When it does occur in poultry which are being reared for egg production, it is predominantly a disease of young birds—pullets—rather than adult birds. Infection in pullet flocks presents no direct risk to public health, as the birds are not producing eggs. Young birds can be treated and my officials will give advice to flock owners on appropriate treatment arrangements. The automatic slaughter policy for laying flocks infected with salmonella typhimurium will be discontinued but the arrangements for monitoring and reporting of infection
  392
  will continue. Salmonella typhimurium will therefore be placed in the same category as all types of salmonella, other than salmonella enteritidis, where existing measures will continue to be taken where necessary to protect public health.

  The Government have published today the second part of the report of the Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. Among the committee's conclusions is a recommendation that the topic of salmonella in eggs should be considered by the new advisory committee and steering group on the microbiological safety of food. The Government have agreed in their response that the issue of salmonella in eggs needs to be kept under close review and will be examining a number of issues which remain to be resolved. One of these issues, on which research is currently under way, is the pasteurisation of eggs from infected flocks. European Community proposals on the control of salmonella enteritidis are expected to include this treatment, as part of an alternative method of control involving the safe disposal of products from infected flocks rather than compulsory slaughter.

  The salmonella control measures as a whole will be assessed further in the light of progress in the European Community discussions. It remains the Government's firm objective to secure Communitywide measures on salmonella which ensure that consumers are protected, whether consuming home produced or imported products, and that producers throughout the Community operate to the same high standards as in this country.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions poultry farms which have had flocks slaughtered due to salmonella infection have been reinfected, with consequent flock slaughter(a) once and (b) more than once.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been eight instances where poultry have been compulsorily slaughtered, following previous compulsory slaughter on the same farm. In only two of these cases was the same strain of salmonella involved on both occasions. There have been no instances of slaughter being required more than twice on the same premises.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 485, if he will make a statement on the negotiations for the adoption of comprehensive Community rules setting higher welfare standards for animals during all stages of transport.

  Mr. Maclean
  A Council working group meeting to discuss the Commission's proposals was held in February 1990 but there have been no subsequent negotiations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, columns 427–28, on the value of the state earnings-related pension, he will give figures for each year from 1999 to 2029 on the same basis.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is given in the table. It is important to note that calculations of this nature can
  393
  provide only a hypothetical view of the distant future based, as they are, on unchanged assumptions about economic variables and policies.

  The weekly amounts of additional pension payable on retirement on 6 April in the stated year are as follows:

  Year of retirement

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1999

  38·50

  94·25

  134·25

  2000

  40·90

  99·60

  140·80

  2001

  43·20

  104·95

  147·30

  2002

  45·60

  110·50

  154·10

  2003

  4820

  11635

  161·15

  2004

  50·90

  122·45

  168·40

  2005

  53·80

  128·85

  175·95

  2006

  56·60

  135·25

  183·60

  2007

  59·55

  141·95

  191·45

  2008

  6270

  148·95

  199·65

  2009

  66·00

  156·20

  208·10

  2010

  70·40

  166·20

  219·75

  2011

  75·10

  176·85

  232·20

  2012

  80·25

  188·25

  245·40

  2013

  85·60

  200·10

  259·25

  2014

  91·35

  212·80

  274·05

  2015

  97·60

  226·30

  289·75

  2016

  104·35

  240·65

  306·50

  2017

  111·40

  255·75

  324·05

  2018

  118·80

  27165

  342·55

  2019

  12705

  288·75

  362·45

  2020

  135·50

  306·55

  383·15

  2021

  144·80

  325·75

  405·45

  2022

  154·65

  345·95

  428·90

  2023

  165·05

  367·30

  453·65

  2024

  176·30

  390·00

  480·00

  2025

  188·20

  414·00

  507·75

  2026

  201·05

  439·55

  537·35

  2027

  214·65

  466·55

  568·55

  2028

  227·90

  491·95

  594·30

  2029

  241·80

  518·15

  62120

  (a) A person on half average earnings.

  (b) A person on average earnings.

  (c) A person earning at or above the upper earnings limit.

  Notes: From 1990 onwards 5 per cent. prices and 6.5 per cent. earnings growth is assumed. Average earnings are those for all full-time workers on adult rates in all industries and services, excluding those affected by absence.

  Disability Allowance
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the rate of disability allowance for each of the last 10 years and indicate when it is next due for review.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand the right hon. Member's question was intended to refer to the disability premium which was introduced in the income support and reformed housing benefit schemes in April 1988, in the community charge rebate scheme in April 1989 in Scotland, and in the community charge benefit scheme from April 1990. In common with other premiums, the disability premium is reviewed each year as part of the annual benefit uprating exercise. The rates of the premium, including the proposed rates for April 1991, are as follows:

  April 1988 £

  April 1989 £

  April 1990 £

  1April 1991 £

  Rate for a single person

  13·05

  13·70

  15·40

  16·65

  Rate for couples

  18·60

  19·50

  22·10

  23·90

  1 Proposed.

  394
  Since April 1990 the disabled child premium has been payable for each disabled child at the same rate as the disability premium for a single adult.

  Children
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of children in Scotland dependent on supplementary benefit or income support in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of children under 16 years in families on supplementary benefit in 1979 was 109,000. The number of children under 16 years in families on income support in 1989 was 223,000.

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries for 1979 and 1989.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the number of sufferers from myalgic encephalomyelitis who have applied for(a) mobility allowance, (b) attendance allowance and (c) sickness benefits and have been refused because their illness is not recognised by the Department of Social Security in Scotland.

  Mr. Scott
  No myalegic encephalomyelitis sufferers in Scotland have been refused mobility allowance, attendance allowance or sickness benefits on the ground that their illness is not recognised.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis seeking his assistance in obtaining state benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  A number of representations have been made by, and on behalf of, people suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis about the general difficulties they face. We understand their concerns and continue to consider them sympathetically.

  Care Homes (Residents' Leave)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the number of claimants in care homes who have lost benefit during leave periods through the incorrect interpretation of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulation, schedule 7 and paragraph 7(1)(a);

  (2) when he intends to issue new guidelines to adjudication officers with regard to their interpretation of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations, schedule 7, paragraph 7(1)(a) concerning benefit payments to care home residents during leave periods.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No such estimate has been made. The regulation is clear in its intention and it is for the independent adjudication officer to determine the correct application in each case. We are looking at the implications of this regulation for people in certain circumstances in residential care and nursing homes.

  Income Support
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the level of income support from April 1991 to ensure it does not fall below the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.
  395
  Miss Widdecombe
  It has been reviewed. In his uprating statement of 24 October last year my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced that income-related benefits, including income support, would rise by 8.1 per cent. from next April.

  The uprating is based, as usual, on the RPI less housing costs. This is because, for those receiving income support, help with rent is available through housing benefit and help with mortgage interest is available separately within the income support scheme.

  Fostering
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's payment to a local authority for children aged under five years in a foster home.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department makes no such payment. The maintenance of these children is covered by boarding out allowances paid by local authorities, which are met from the revenue support grant.

  Coventry Cyrenians
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will propose changes to income support and social fund legislation following the cases raised with him by the letter from the Coventry Cyrenians, dated 14 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No. We are satisfied that current social security policy for homeless young people is correct. A copy of my reply to the Coventry Cyrenians has been sent to the hon. Member.

  Benefit Expenditure
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the reduction from 97 per cent. to 95 per cent. of grant for housing benefit and poll tax benefit is still to be implemented; what will be the savings to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The basic rate of direct subsidy for housing benefit and community charge benefit will be reduced from 97 per cent. to 95 per cent. from April 1991. Although this will result in a reduction in direct subsidy of some £86 million, the effect of this reduction was fully taken into account in drawing up the proposed local government financial settlements for 1991–92.

  Claimants, Warwickshire
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for Coventry and Warwickshire for how many people are dependent on(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not available to show the number of people dependent on income support, family credit and housing benefit and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The latest available information for the number of claims to these benefits in Coventry and Warwickshire is as follows:

  Coventry

  Warwickshire

  Income support1

  33,453

  25,368

  Family Credit2

  1,522

  3,331

  Housing Benefit3

  22,992

  23,357

  396

  1 Derived from 30 November 1990 count of 100 per cent. of cases in action which include a number where payment had ceased but other action was continuing.

  2 Number of families receiving Family Credit who, at the time their award was made, were living in Coventry or Warwickshire. These figures do not include awards made after 28 December 1990.

  3 Number of people receiving Housing Benefit on 31 August 1990.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial application British Rail has made for the provision of passenger and cargo facilities in Liverpool to ensure direct access to the channel tunnel rail system.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail proposes to have a terminal on Merseyside for international freight services. Passengers between Liverpool and the continent will need to change in London or at Crewe.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has met the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail links between Scotland and the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met Sir Bob Reid on 12 December when a number of issues, including channel tunnel services running north of London, were discussed.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the environmental aspects of the proposed high-speed rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail intends to publish a full environmental statement for its final preferred route, taking into account the representations received in the course of public consultations.

  Transport Policy
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what role he envisages for the railway within transport policy.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's network is an important part of the transport system in this country. It will benefit from our policy of aiming to improve all forms of transport. Railways can make their contribution to a safer, more efficient and less environmentally damaging transport system. They will do this by providing a service that people choose to use on the grounds of convenience and cost.

  Midland Main Line
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed the midland main line with the chairman of British Rail; whether he discussed possible improvements to the Leicester to St. Pancras section; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I welcome the improved service which British Rail now offers on the midland main line, and I am keeping in touch with British Rail about plans for possible further improvements.

  Road Safety
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government intend to take additional measures to improve existing road and rail access to the channel tunnel from Wales and the west of England.

  Mr. Freeman
  The national roads programme includes major schemes to improve access from Wales and the west of England to the tunnel and channel ports. British Rail has announced investment of over £1·4 billion in tunnel-related improvements for freight and passenger services.

  London Underground
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of London Underground track are currently in use for passenger services north of the River Thames, and how many are in use south of the River Thames.

  Mr. Freeman
  London Underground has 438 miles of track north of the Thames and 33 miles south of the Thames that are currently in use for passenger services.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether London Underground has sought any additional funding to cover the projected shortfall of £52 million in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  London Transport has requested additional funding this year. We are considering its request.

  Public Transport (Hackney)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to visit Hackney to discuss public transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  I discussed public transport matters with representatives of the London borough of Hackney when I visited Tower Hamlets on 27 September. I have no plans to visit Hackney at present; if the hon. Member has a specific concern, perhaps she could write to me.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss performance targets.

  Mr. Freeman
  I meet the chairman of London Transport regularly to discuss a variety of issues, including performance targets.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in his consideration of the appointment of a chairman of London Regional Transport, he takes into account his ability to be financially competent and to manage senior staff to ensure their financial competence.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes; my right hon. and learned Friend would take account of these and many other relevant factors.

  Bathgate Station
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his predecessor's official visit to Bathgate railway station in November.
  398
  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend was impressed by the success of the Edinburgh-Bathgate line since its re-opening to passenger services.

  Dial-a-Ride
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he intends to respond to representations about the reorganisation of Dial-a-Ride in London.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am still considering representations received from my hon. Friend and others. I expect to give my hon. Friend a written answer shortly.

  Rail Services (South-East)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss extending the passenger service to towns in the south-east that are not yet linked into Network SouthEast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is a matter for British Rail to come forward with proposals for opening lines where there is a commercial case. I understand that Network SouthEast is currently consulting interested parties about various proposals for public transport in the Luton-Dunstable corridor.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the criteria for payment of transport supplementary grant for road development.

  Mr. Chope
  The criteria for payment of transport supplementary grant to local highway authorities in support of their capital expenditure on highways and the regulation of traffic are set out in a local authority circular No. 1/90, a copy of which is in the Library. TSG in 1991–92 will be 17 per cent. higher than in 1990–91, and in addition £45 million TSG will be made available for work on bridges making a total of £318 million.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the transport supplementary grant settlement for Essex in the last two years.

  Mr. Chope
  Essex received £5·1 million net transport supplementary grant in 1989–90 and £6·7 million in 1990–91. In 1991–92 it will receive £6·4 million.

  Parking (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any recent discussions on the problems of parking in London.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes.

  Airline Security
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent steps have been taken by his Department to tighten airline security in respect of the continuing dangers posed to British interests by the crisis in the middle east.

  Mr. Rifkind
  All practical and possible steps are being taken through British airlines and the Governments of
  399
  countries to which they fly, to tighten aviation security. We and other Governments have developed contingency plans for further measures in the event of hostilities. Aviation security is at an unprecedentedly high level. It would not be in the public interest to reveal details.

  Vehicle Exhaust Pollution
  Mr. Alex Cathie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to reduce the level of vehicle exhaust pollution in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Our proposals to reduce vehicle exhaust pollution are not specific to London. We have participated actively in discussions within the EC about controls on vehicle emissions. I am pleased to say that following a decision in the EC Environment Council on 20 December 1990, strict new emission standards will apply to all new petrol driven cars from 31 December 1992 and as a result such cars will have to be fitted with catalytic convertors. We are now pressing for strict standards for gaseous and particulate emissions from goods vehicles and buses. In 1991, for the first time, we also propose to include an emissions check in the annual MOT test. Duty differentials in favour of unleaded petrol are encouraging its widespread use and it now accounts for almost 40 per cent. of all petrol sold in this country.

  British Rail
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of the requirement for British Rail to publish an annual corporate plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no requirement for British Rail to publish an annual corporate plan. I understand that the chairman of British Rail aims to publish a longer term strategy document for the railway later this year.

  Railway Accidents
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he published the report into the railway accident at Walton on the Naze in 1987; whether the contents of that report have been taken into account in respect of any later incidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The railway inspectorate has not yet completed its report on the Walton on the Naze accident, partly because the inspecting officer was involved as an assessor to Sir Anthony Hidden's investigation into the Clapham junction accident, but it has already ensured that the lessons learned have been put into practice. The report will be published at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirements are made by his railway inspectorate concerning provision of hydraulic buffer stops or sand drags at frequently used terminal platforms.

  Mr. Freeman
  Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, which is now part of the Health and Safety Executive, has no requirement for railway operators to provide particular types of buffer stops at terminal stations. Buffer stops are generally designed to minimise injury to train passengers and damage to railway vehicles where impact is slight. If 400
  impact is made with greater force, the buffer stop should prevent a train overrunning onto the station concourse. I am advised that it would not be practicable to specify the impact loading that individual sets of buffer stops should withstand since most stations are used by a variety of rolling stock with different characteristics.

  EC Regulations
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons Her Majesty's Government agreed at the European Council on 15 December 1990, that the Commission proposals on excise duties on fuel, taxes, tolls, etc., should be resolved by the Council on 30 June 1991; and if he will make a statement summarising the proposals submitted by the Commission on these matters.

  Mr. Chope
  These issues have been identified as among those to be addressed before completion of the internal market in 1992. The Commission proposals for the charging of transport infrastructure costs to heavy vehicles will be the subject of an explanatory memorandum to be laid before the House in the usual way.

  Drivers (Health)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what medical advice is available to him on the health of drivers and motorcycle riders and on those in charge of the various forms of public transport for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 December 1990 c. 125]: The health of railway employees is a matter for individual railway operators.

  The statutory responsibility for the safety regulations of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. This includes the medical standards for the issue of appropriate flight crew and air traffic controller licences.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements exist for the provision of an occupational health service for employees within his Department, stating(a) how many staff are employed to provide occupational health services, (b) how many of those staff are qualified nurses and (c) how many employees work in his Department in total.

  Mr. Hanley
  For its home civil servants, the Northern Ireland Office has access to the services of the Civil Service occupational health service which employs some 100 fully qualified occupational health professionals and operates via a network of regional offices throughout the United Kingdom.

  An occupational health service was established within the Northern Ireland Civil Service in 1988. Its primary responsibility is the occupational health care of all civil servants. At present there are three doctor posts, one nurse post and four administrative posts providing the occupational health services.

  There are just under 28,600 employees in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments combined.

  Rural Development
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why he has decided not to publish the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Development which will soon be completed.

  Mr. Hanley
  The report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Development will provide advice to Ministers on ways in which the delivery of the Government's social and economic policies in the most deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland might be improved. It would not be appropriate to publish internal advice of this nature.

  However, I acknowledge the continuing interest of the hon. Gentleman and others in the work of the Committee and on receipt of its report I will be considering whether and in what form more detailed information about its work and conclusions might be released.

  Moyle Hospital
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the length of waiting lists for patients seeking admission to Moyle hospital, Larne; and what is the average figure for similar hospital provision within Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number on Waiting List at 30 September 1990

  Specialty

  Moyle

  Average of similar Hospital Provision

  General Surgery

  148

  138

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  142

  1

  Gynaecology

  36

  120

  1 Specialty not provided.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's assessment of the cost-effectiveness of basic acute specialty provision for patients admitted to Moyle hospital, Larne.

  Mr. Hanley
  No such assessment has been made by the Department of Health and Social Services since this is a matter for the Northern health and social services board.

  Acute Hospital Beds
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many acute hospital beds pro rata to its population each health board in Northern Ireland provides; and whether he will take steps to remove any inequality of provision.

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures requested are as follows:

  HSS Board

  Available Acute Beds per 1,000 population (1989–90)

  Eastern

  5·1

  Northern

  2·5

  Southern

  2·8

  Western

  2·7

  The high level of provision in the Eastern board area reflects the inclusion of beds for regional medical services there. All hospitals often provide care to patients outside own board areas.

  Health Policies (East Antrim)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to ensure that the Northern health and social services board implements the policies of Her Majesty's Government for the 1990s at Moyle hospital, Larne, and for the east Antrim area.

  Mr. Hanley
  Under the Government's proposals set out in "Working for Patients" responsibility for the provision of services to the population of Larne, and the East Antrim area falls to the Northern health and social services board. Implementation of the Government's policies by the Northern board will continue to be monitored through the annual accountability review process.

  Housing Executive (Garages)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the garages owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive at the rear of Wellington avenue, Larne, have tenants; and what assessment has been made of the effect the present rent level charged by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for garages on incentives to car-owning tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties to use garage space available.

  Mr. Needham
  The chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has advised me that there are 19 garages owned by the Executive at the rear of Wellington avenue, Larne, seven of which are rented. The Executive has given consideration to the rent levels for garages and is satisfied that they are appropriate. No incentives are offered to Housing Executive tenants in respect of the rental of available garage space.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many garages are in the ownership of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in Northern Ireland; and for how many garages the Northern Ireland Housing Executive receives rental payments.

  Mr. Needham
  The chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has advised me that the Executive owns 11,283 garages and rental payments are received for 7,185 of these garages.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many garages have been demolished by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  The chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has advised me that the number of garages demolished in each of the last three years is as follows:

  Number

  1987–88

  118

  1988–89

  77

  1989–90

  135

  Primary School Pupils
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of primary school pupils in each education and library board area over the last ten years.
  403
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers are as follows:

  Year

  Belfast

  Western

  North-Eastern

  South-Eastern

  Southern

  1981

  31,708

  36,113

  44,336

  35,559

  41,862

  1982

  30,491

  35,609

  42,645

  34,882

  41,111

  1983

  29,200

  35,165

  41,389

  34,010

  40,481

  1984

  28,825

  35,015

  40,725

  34,183

  40,310

  1985

  28,461

  35,194

  40,085

  34,509

  40,425

  1986

  28,509

  35,254

  39,788

  34,672

  40,519

  1987

  28,690

  35,512

  39,517

  34,954

  40,844

  1988

  29,158

  35,541

  39,390

  34,935

  41,098

  1989

  29,411

  35,979

  39,491

  35,290

  41,562

  1990

  29,988

  36,212

  39,687

  35,516

  41,877

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many school inspectors have been employed by the Department of Education in each of the last five years; and what has been the cost of employing each of these inspectors in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of inspectors

  Total cost £

  1986–87

  53

  2,004,822

  1987–88

  57

  2,448,024

  1988–89

  57

  2,432,807

  Education and Library Boards' Administration Expenditure

  Year

  Belfast £000s

  North-Eastern £000s

  South-Eastern £000s

  Southern £000s

  Western £000s

  Total £000s

  1985–86

  4,328

  3,796

  3,580

  3,574

  3,427

  18,705

  1986–87

  4,609

  4,207

  3,928

  3,968

  3,709

  10,421

  1987–88

  4,994

  4,606

  4,360

  4,509

  4,118

  22,587

  1988–89

  5,237

  5,294

  4,839

  5,460

  4,735

  25,565

  1989–90

  5,898

  6,056

  5,651

  6,250

  5,445

  29,300

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of employed persons in the tobacco industry in the Province (i) at the latest date and (ii) five years ago.

  Mr. Needham
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Housing
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of housing executive properties (a) demolished and (b) replaced in each of the polling wards in Belfast for each year including and since 1979.
  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the chairman of the Housing Executive who has informed me that the information is not available in the form requested and could only be compiled at disproportionate cost.

  Pupil Costs
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the unit cost per pupil for each secondary school in each education and library board area.
  404

  Year

  Number of inspectors

  Total cost £

  1989–90

  57

  2,646,122

  1990–91

  60

  12,987,429

  1 Estimated

  Education and Library Boards (Administration)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on administration by each of the five education and library boards in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Red Foxes
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the Royal Ulster Constabulary require those engaged in the shooting of red foxes for control purposes to do so with .22 rimfire rifles.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has informed me that he does not require the use of .22 rimfire rifles for the shooting of red foxes.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to offer financial compensation to sheep farmers and game preservers for depredations by red foxes.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no grounds for claiming compensation for loses due to a natural predator such as a fox.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is responsible for firearms policy in Northern Ireland in relation to rimfire and centrefire rifles suitable for vermin destruction; and what is that policy in relation to requests for .22 centrefire rifles for fox control.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Responsibility for firearms licensing policy rests with the chief constable of the Royal Ulster
  405
  Constabulary but, as appeals under the firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 are to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the chief constable consults him from time to time on aspects of firearms policy.

  As part of that policy, the chief constable would not normally authorise the use of .22 centrefire rifles for fox control.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland upon what expert evidence and research his policy in respect of the firearms to be used for controlling red foxes is based; and what representations he has had on this subject.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The policy on firearms for controlling red foxes has developed over many years. From time to time expert advice has been sought from the Northern Ireland Departments of Agriculture and Environment as well as from the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Most recently representations have been received from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Joint Shooting Committee of Northern Ireland.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he will take to protect the fishing industry in Northern Ireland in connection with proposals being considered by the European Community involving the imposition of quotas on cod and whiting.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Commission's proposals for 1991 total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas were considered at the Fisheries Council held on 19 and 20 December. Ministerial colleagues from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office represented the United Kingdom at Council and were fully briefed, by a senior Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland official who accompanied them, on the importance of Irish sea cod and whiting (and other important stocks) to the Northern Ireland fishing industry. At Council they were successful in achieving increases in the Commission's original proposals from 6,000 tonnes to 10,000 tonnes in the cod TAC and from 6,400 tonnes to 10,000 tonnes in the whiting TAC which gave the United Kingdom 1991 quotas of 3,355 tonnes for cod and 3,865 tonnes for whiting. In addition quota swaps of 410 tonnes of cod and 320 tonnes of whiting from other member states have been agreed. This outcome represents a reasonable balance between the more immediate requirements of fishermen and the need to conserve stocks in the longer term interests of the industry.

  School Traffic Patrols
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the vacancies for school traffic patrols in Northern Ireland, by education board.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: The numbers of vacancies at 1 December 1990 for school traffic patrols in Northern Ireland, by education board were as follows:

  Number

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  4

  North-Eastern Education and Library Board

  2

  South-Eastern Education and Library Board

  1

  406

  Number

  Southern Education and Library Board

  0

  Western Education and Library Board

  4

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether training and enterprise councils are public bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) are private companies operating under a performance contract with my Department. A network of 82 TECs in England and Wales is now in place, with 46 TECs already operational and the remainder in development. The full network will be operational in the summer, some two years ahead of schedule.

  EC Support Framework
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the full amount of assistance received from the Commission of the European Community for the 1990 allocation support framework for operational programmes 3 and 4.

  Mr. Forth
  The full amount of assistance approved to date by the European Commission for operational programmes under objectives 3 and 4 in 1990 is £229,229,551. Under the fund's rules, the Commission actually releases the money in the three stages.

  The first advance of £114.6 million was received last October. My Department applied for the second advance at the earliest opportunity allowed by the fund, and payment from the Commission is expected by the end of January. My Department will similarly submit the final claim as quickly as possible.

  Association of Accounting Technicians
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the work of the Association of Accounting Technicians to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Howard
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the Authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 28 January 1991 to 1 February 1991.

  European Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for what reasons Her Majesty's Government agreed at the European Council on 15 December 1990, to press ahead more actively with the action programme for the implementation of the social charter; and if he will make a statement summerising the proposals of this action programme.

  Mr. Forth
  The conclusions of the European Council on 15 December 1990 on the social action programme apply in particular to health and safety. The Council took the
  407
  view that proposals on health and safety at work should be adopted without delay. The Government fully support this view. We have always made clear that we were prepared to accept the health and safety aspects of the social action programme.

  As to the other proposals in the social action programme, the European Council asked that in speeding up proceedings, the Community should start with the matters on which rapid progress was possible. The Council set out quite clearly that they should meet the three criteria of creating and developing employment, respect for the principle of subsidiarity and respect for the diversity of tradition and custom across the Community.

  The United Kingdom has consistently advocated these principles during negotiations on the social action programme and will support proposals which satisfy these criteria.

  The European Commission's social action programme covers a wide range of proposals in the labour and social field. The proposals were summarised in the explanatory memoranda submitted by the Department of Employment on 6 January 1990 and 15 March 1990 (numbers 9978–89 and 9778–89).

  Disability
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what grants are available to employers to enable handicapped people to operate machinery.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service Executive Agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

HEALTH

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the percentage for the latest year available for the number of certificates concerning abortions lodged late with his Department in breach of the regulations governing the Abortion Act 1967; and if he will give the percentage of these cases in which his Department: took action, broken down by the form of action taken.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1989, 54 per cent. of the notification forms (HSA4) sent to the chief medical officer for abortions performed in England and Wales were received more than seven days after the date of termination. The great majority of notifications are received within 28 days. Follow up action was taken by letter in respect of 150 notifications (0.15 per cent.) where no reasonable explanation for the delay was received. We shall continue to remind doctors about the time limit and the penalty for failure to comply with it.

  Marriage Guidance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the employment of counsellors in group general practices to deal with marriage guidance.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Employment of such staff by practices is a matter for GPs themselves to decide in the light of the needs of their patients and of the circumstances of their practices.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a list of regional health authorities showing how many patients in each had been waiting(a) for one year and (b) for two years for operations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the table. For England as a whole the number of in-patients waiting over a year for operations has fallen by 17,086 (9 per cent.) and for those waiting over two years by 10,737 (14 per cent.) in the 12 months to March 1990. Since March 1979 the number of patients treated has increased by 24·9 per cent.

  Waiting list for in-patient surgical acute treatment at 31 March 1990—England

  RHA

  Total1

  Over 1 year

  Over 2 year

  Northern

  31,912

  6,931

  2,536

  Yorkshire

  41,898

  7,827

  2,667

  Trent

  50,216

  10,440

  3,386

  East Anglian

  29,967

  7,587

  2,960

  North West Thames

  40,701

  11,876

  5,339

  North East Thames

  60,146

  21,146

  10,404

  South East Thames

  53,551

  17,196

  8,320

  South West Thames

  34,827

  11,610

  4,244

  Wessex

  37,645

  9,450

  3,591

  Oxford

  29,325

  8,457

  3,107

  South Western

  43,666

  11,838

  4,398

  West Midlands

  61,883

  16,264

  6,507

  Mersey

  22,605

  2,329

  16

  North Western

  57,321

  19,718

  5,485

  Special HAs

  7,389

  1,891

  590

  England (total)

  603,052

  164,560

  63,550

  Source: KHO6, KHO7, KHO7A.

  1 Figures relate to those waiting less self-deferred cases.

  Hearing Aids
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the waiting times for hearing aids in the Trent regional health authority; and what steps are being taken to substantially reduce the waiting time for those seeking hearing aids.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information about waiting times is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to write to Sir Michael Carlisle, the chairman of Trent regional health authority for this information. My hon. Friend will welcome the Department's commitment to fund 12 pilot projects aimed at reducing waiting times for hearing aid services. Two hospitals in the Trent region are participating in this initiative. Also, Leicestershire health authority has received £50,000 from the waiting list fund in 1990–91 specifically for hearing aid services. This is expected to treat an additional 1,000 outpatients.

  Fostering
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will order an inquiry into the circumstances of a coloured child removed from white foster parents by Lancashire county council; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will review the guidelines for transracial adoptions, so as to avoid the removal of children from foster parents of different racial origin to their children; and if he will make a statement.
  409
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All directors of social services in England on 29 January 1990 received guidance on the issues of race and culture in the placement of children for fostering and adoption. It makes clear that usually placements with a family of similar ethnic origin and religion will be most likely to meet a child's needs and safeguard his or her welfare. In some cases, however, placement with a family of a different ethnic origin may be the best choice for a particular child. All factors relevant to a child's welfare should be considered when decisions are made. Copies of the guidance (CI(90)2), which is still current, have been placed in the Library.

  The social services inspectorate has made inquiries into the case in question. It has been assured that in reaching its decision to remove the child and place him for adoption with another white family, Lancashire county council gave first consideration to the child's welfare. The ethnic origins of the child were considered but were not the principal reason for the removal.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are estimated to be taking benzodiazepines on a long-term basis.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no such estimates held centrally.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he has carried out any research into the efficiency and comparative cost of Temazepam Planpak, in aiding the withdrawal of patients from benzodiazepines;

  (2) what withdrawal strategies are referred to by the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs in its reference to all clinical needs in respect of withdrawal from benzodiazepines being able to be met equally effectively and at less cost by standard products in the contect of less rigid, individually structured withdrawal programmes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has not funded research into the use of Temazepam Planpak, but is aware that some research has been carried out. Guidance on benzodiazepine withdrawal strategies is provided in part 4·1 of the British National Formulary. A suggested protocol for patients unable to reduce dosage using their existing drug is to transfer to diazepam, and then to reduce dosage gradually. Diazepam is available in low-dosage tablets, and allows withdrawal to be tailored flexibly to the needs of individual patients. It is also significantly less expensive than Temazepam Planpak.

  Temazepam
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the general availability of a gel-filled form of tablets and on their producers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to temazepam gel-filled capsules, which are marketed by several different pharmaceutical companies. Temazepam is also available in tablet form. As medicines, all marketed forms of temazepam require licences under the Medicines Act 1968. Manufacturers of temazepam capsules and tablets have provided sufficient information to the Medicines Control Agency to satisfy the provisions of the Act.
  410
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the reasons behind the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs refusal to allow any increase in price to recover the costs incurred in the development of Temazepam gel-filled capsules for the prevention of drug abuse; and why they have proposed that the benefit of brand-name prescribing should not be available to their originator;

  (2) what is his policy on financial recognition of the cost of research and development by the pharmaceutical industry of products in categories covered by the limited list.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  One of the principles underlying the operation of the selected list scheme since its introduction in 1985 has been that, in order to achieve maximum economy, the drugs retained for NHS prescription should where possible be specified and prescribed by a non-proprietary name. The recent recommendation of the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs that temazepam capsules should not be prescribable by the relatively new proprietary name Gelthix, but only by the non-proprietary name, is in accordance with this principle.

  Interleukin II
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all patients receiving chemotherapy cancer treatment at a self-governing trust hospital or a directly managed hospital, will have the drug Interleukin II available to them it if is prescribed by the senior medical doctor in charge of their treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Interleukin II is not licensed under the Medicines Act for general use in this country but, at a doctor's discretion may be recommended on a specific named patient basis or for a patient as part of a clinical trial.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent his Department collects and collates statistics from local authority social services departments covering child abuse cases referred to them, including such detail as mode of referral and nature of abuse; whether he has plans to institute the compilation and production of such statistics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information collected centrally about child abuse relates to the number of children and young persons on child protection registers and the number of names added to and removed from the registers. The most recent information relates to the year ending 31 March 1990. This is published in the provisional feedback "Children and Young Persons on Child Protection Registers England 1990" and is available in the Library.

  Information is not collected centrally about the number of child abuse case referrals and there are no plans to institute collection of such statistics.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will break down the total numbers of deaths caused by breast cancer in England and Wales for each
  411
  year since 1979 into ages 16 to 24 years, 25 to 34 years, 35 to 44 years, 45 to 54 years, 55 to 64 years, and 65 years and over.

  Year and Sex

  All ages

  15–24

  25–34

  35–44

  45–54

  55–64

  65+

  1979

  Males1

  83

  —

  1

  4

  12

  20

  46

  Females1

  12,091

  2

  161

  653

  1,812

  2,799

  6,664

  1980

  Males

  78

  —

  —

  —

  6

  19

  53

  Females

  12,167

  2

  136

  679

  1,873

  2,802

  6,675

  1981

  Males

  84

  —

  —

  3

  8

  10

  63

  Females

  12,513

  3

  158

  679

  1,863

  2,886

  6,924

  1982

  Males

  87

  —

  —

  1

  7

  20

  59

  Females

  12,405

  6

  142

  694

  1,841

  2,862

  6,860

  1983

  Males

  87

  —

  1

  1

  4

  19

  62

  Females

  12,672

  3

  127

  688

  1,783

  2,948

  7,123

  1984

  Males

  99

  —

  —

  5

  7

  21

  66

  Females

  13,310

  6

  143

  708

  1,779

  3,010

  7,664

  1985

  Males

  79

  —

  —

  1

  7

  10

  61

  Females

  13,513

  5

  126

  722

  1,669

  3,073

  7,918

  1986

  Males

  105

  1

  —

  4

  4

  28

  68

  Females

  13,641

  6

  136

  742

  1,792

  2,866

  8,099

  1987

  Males

  89

  —

  —

  5

  2

  15

  67

  Females

  13,751

  3

  148

  715

  1,724

  2,838

  8,323

  1988

  Males

  73

  —

  —

  1

  3

  13

  56

  Females

  13,723

  5

  141

  816

  1,684

  2,726

  8,351

  1989

  Males

  76

  —

  —

  —

  10

  10

  56

  Females

  14,008

  5

  137

  817

  1,742

  2,690

  8,617

  1 International Classification of Disease Code 9th revision.

  174 malignant neoplasm of female breast.

  175 malignant neoplasm of male breast.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued to general practitioners about the degree of freedom they have to refer patients to whichever hospital they, or their patient, choose, whether the hospital is directly managed or a national health service trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  GPs will have the same freedom as now to refer patients to the hospital of their choice for the appropriate treatment. A key advantage of the NHS reforms will be improved arrangements to give practical effect to this freedom.

  "Contracts for Health Services: Operational Principles"—a copy of which is in the Library—provides guidance to health authorities. It emphasises the need to consult GPs on their preferred patterns of referral.
  412
  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of deaths from underlying cause of breast cancer by sex in each of the age groups 15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, and 65 + in England and Wales from 1979 to 1989 is as follows:

  AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his written reply of 12 December,Official Report, columns 364–65, to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), when he will publish further details of the proposed settlement of the dispute between the Government and people with haemophilia who were infected with the AIDS virus by contaminated blood products supplied by the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The detailed provisions of the proposed settlement are under discussion with the lawyers representing the plaintiffs. It would be inappropriate to publish further details until all plaintiffs and the court have had an opportunity to consider the full terms of the settlement and to approve them.

  Neurosciences
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he knew to be the cost of moving neurosciences from Shooters hill to Denmark hill when he announced approval for the proposal in 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 27 November 1990 at c.363.

  Chiropractic
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the experience of Denmark in the provision of chiropractic within its national health service; and if he will make it his policy to include this discipline in the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are aware that in Denmark chiropractic is available under the state health scheme. However, all medical treatment under the NHS must, by law, be given or presented by a registered medical practitioner or by certain state registered professions who practice in their own right. There are no plans to change that long established principle.

  NHS Staff (Conscription)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the number of NHS staff, broken down into doctors, nurses, ancillary staff, etc., who would be liable were the call-up of reserve forces to become compulsory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mylograms
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate, region by region, the number of patients who were given a mylogram procedure with the use of myodil contrast medium, and who have subsequently requested from their district health authority full details and confirmation that the myodil contrast medium was administered; how many of the total number of those requesting information and confirmation have been provided with the information as requested; and how many requests are outstanding.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to advise district health authorities that they should allow no more than three months when dealing with individual requests from patients seeking confirmation that they were subjected to a myodil contrast medium.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have not issued any guidelines as to the timescale within which health authorities should process requests for access to personal medical records. We have, however, encouraged them to deal with such requests as quickly as possible.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each district health authority, Scottish health authority, regional health authority and England as a whole the amount spent on management consultants' fees during each of the last three years.
  414
  Mr. Dorrell
  The employment of management consultants is a matter for individual health authorities in England and information on any expenditure incurred is not collected centrally.

  Questions concerning Scottish health authorities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Soviet Union
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any proposals to assist the USSR to overcome the current shortage of anti-cancer drugs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom has not received any specific requests for unilateral aid from the USSR, but is participating in the programme of European Community humanitarian aid to the USSR agreed at the European Council in December 1990. This aid will include medical supplies and some 250 tonnes have been despatched. We do not have details of the contents of these consignments.

  Food Safety
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when part 11 of the report of the Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food will be published.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Sir Mark Richmond submitted part II of his Committee's report to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is being published today.

  In this, the final part, the Committee has examined arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland for red meat production, milk and milk products, fish and shellfish, transport, retailing and wholesaling, catering, the consumer and the home, education and training, and research. Part II together with part I, surveys authoritatively a wide range of microbiological safety issues and recommends technical, scientific, legal and educational measures to reduce the risk of microbiological food poisoning. In this context my colleagues and I welcome the report as a useful and constructive document. It makes many useful recommendations which we shall follow up in a positive way; and as with part I of the Committee's report, we trust that others to whom the recommendations are addressed, in particular the food industry and environmental health authorities, will similarly examine it to see how the level of food safety in this country can be further improved. We shall certainly draw it to the attention of interested bodies.

  As with part I of the Committee's report, the Government have decided to publish its immediate response to the Committee's recommendations. This is set out in a paper which is being put into the Libraries.

  The Government and I are most grateful to the Committee for the hard work it has put into producing both parts of the report.

  The report is addressed to the Secretary of State for Health, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Nurses
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average number of nurses employed by Norwich health authority who attended training courses in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the average number of (a) holidays and (b) sickness days taken by nurses employed by Norwich health authority, in each of the years 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Michael Falcon the chairman of Norwich health authority for details.

  Adoption
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the date when he will issue the discussion paper on the review of inter-country adoption law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We intend to issue the discussion paper on inter-country adoption, which will be a paper in the Adoption Law Review series, by Easter.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he expects the effect on the recently negotiated reduction in junior doctors' hours of the call-up for Gulf or other military service of reserve medical personnel to be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The agreement on junior doctors' hours sets out a programme of action to be implemented over the next year and beyond. It is not therefore anticipated that the call-up for military service of reserve medical personnel will have a measurable effect on this programme.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria, relating to people with disabilities, will be used in the formula for calculating payments made to social service authorities for services under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 December 1990]: A major element of Government grants to local authorities is the revenue support grant, which is distributed using standard spending assessments (SSAs). These take account of each authority's social, demographic and economic characteristics, and the functions for which it is responsible. However, revenue support grant is unhypothecated and it is for local authorities to determine their own priori ties.

  Separate components are included in the personal social services SSA for services to people over 65 years old, to children, and to clients aged under 65 including mentally ill, mentally handicapped and physically handicapped people. Details of the criteria involved are given in "Standard Spending Assessments, Background and Underlying Methodology" published by the Department of the Environment in 1990 and available in
  416
  the Library. When data from the 1991 census become available the use of a new indicator relating to long standing illness or disabilities will be considered.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which National Health Service trusts he intends to establish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 December 1990, c. 77–82]: I am pleased to announce that I have agreed that a further 12 units who have expressed interest in trust status can proceed to work up applications to become trusts on 1 April 1992. This brings the total number of units working on second wave trust status to 123. The 12 units are:

  Kendal Hospitals Unit

  Eastbourne Acute Services

  Parkside Community Services

  Staffordshire Ambulance Services

  Waltham Forest Health Services

  Frenchay Acute and Community Services

  Southmead Acute and Community Services

  Royal United Hospital Bath

  East Berkshire Mental Handicap UE0

  Dudley Priority Unit

  Liverpool Community, Mental Illness and Mental Handicap Services

  Mersey Metropolitan Ambulance Service

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all those National Health Service general hospitals by district and region which have less than 400 acute beds, giving the actual number of beds in each case.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 4 December 1990]: I am arranging for the table containing available information to be placed in the Library. It is not possible from central returns to identify district general hospitals separately. The tables provided list hospitals with over 50 and less than 400 beds excluding those hospitals where more than 50 per cent. of the total beds are maternity beds or beds in units of the young disabled.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the National Health Service hospitals, by region and district, which provide accident and emergency services, together with, in each case(a) the number of acute beds in the hospital, (b) the total number of beds in the hospital and (c) a list of those services normally found in a district general hospital which are not available in that particular hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 4 December 1990]: I am arranging for the table containing available information to be placed in the Library. The accident and emergency facilities concerned will range from simple first aid stations to departments providing the full range of accident and emergency services. No central record is held of the services available in each hospital.

SCOTLAND

  Community Care
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will meet the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations to discuss availability of funding for voluntary organisations involved in community care and other matters; and if he will make a statement.
  417
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Officials met representatives of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations on 15 November 1990 to discuss the role of the voluntary sector in the provision of community care services and a further meeting will be held in January 1991. Officials are always happy to meet the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations on matters of concern to voluntary organisations. As far as funding is concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 15 October 1990.

  Pensioners' Electricity Charges
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Old Age Pensioners' Association for the abolition of electricity standing charges for pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Representations are received annually from the Scottish Old Age Pensioners Association on a range of topics, including the abolition of 418
  electricity standing charges. Electricity prices are determined by the public electricity suppliers, subject to the conditions on price control set out in the licences issued to them under the Electricity Act 1989. Compliance by the public electricity suppliers with those conditions and all other conditions of their licences is overseen by the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Health Board Chairmen
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the chairmen of each health board in Scotland including their political affiliations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 26 January 1989 to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) at columns 718–19, which contains as much information as is held centrally about the political affiliations of health board chairmen.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those European countries which have a lower rate of inflation than Scotland; and if he will give details of the interest rates in each of the countries listed.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  There is no official retail prices index (RPI) for Scotland. The table lists those European Community member states which in November 1990 had a lower inflation rate than the United Kingdom's 9·7 per cent. together with their respective average November 1990 short-term interest rates.

  EC member state

  Inflation1

  Interest rates2

  Denmark

  2·2

  n/a

  Ireland

  2·7

  n/a

  Netherlands

  2·8

  8·7

  West Germany

  3·0

  8·8

  France

  3·6

  10·0

  Belgium

  4·0

  9·0

  Luxembourg

  4·5

  n/a

  Italy

  6·5

  12·6

  Spain

  6·7

  14·1

  1 Percentage change on a year earlier.

  2 Nominal three-month inter-bank rates.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding he proposes to give the M E Association and the M E Action Campaign organisations, to assist them in assisting Scottish sufferers of this illness.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The M E Association is receiving grant assistance of £14,668 towards its core headquarters running costs in the current year. Its application for funding in the financial year 1991–92 is still under consideration. I have received no application for funding from the M E Action Campaign organisations.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet with representatives of the M E Association and the M E Action Campaign to discuss how best to assist sufferers in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My officials are in contact with the M E Association as part of the arrangements for monitoring grant aid awarded under section 10(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

  Fishing
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sanction he expects to enforce against those Scottish fishermen who exceeded their quota in any species during 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As part of the normal arrangements for distributing internally the United Kingdom's quotas it has been agreed with the United Kingdom industry that those groups disadvantaged as a result of any other group exceeding its quota in one year will be compensated in the subsequent year with correspondingly increased quotas. These arrangements will apply to all groups which are disadvantaged irrespective of where they are based in the United Kingdom. If an individual fisherman exceeds his monthly quota then, in cases where the quota in question is 420
  managed by Fisheries Departments, a report would be made to the procurator fiscal with a view to prosecution in the courts; if the quota is managed by a producer organisation, the fisherman is subject to the discipline procedures of the organisation.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions he has exercised his powers under section 1(8) of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976; and how, following the making of a protection order, he monitors its operation to ensure the improvement of, or the giving or availability of access of, fishings under a protection order in comparison with the proposals submitted to him in terms of section 1(3)(a) of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has no powers under section 1(8) of the 1976 Act. Responsibility for all public prosecution in Scotland rests with the Lord Advocate.

  Proposers of protection orders are encouraged to set up liaison committees. Regular reports on the operation of the protection orders are sought from each liaison committee. In addition, my right hon. Friend takes into account the views of the Consultative Committee on Freshwater Fisheries and complaints or other comments by angling clubs, associations and members of the public.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy of monitoring fish landings at Scottish ports and inquiring into allegations of misreporting concerning Scottish fishing vessels during 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Landings at each of 20 major fishing ports in Scotland are monitored daily by staff of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. Landings at other ports are monitored periodically. Confirmation of reported areas of fishing activity is sought by comparing log book entries with surveillance data provided by fishery protection vessels and aircraft. All suspected cases of misreporting are investigated thoroughly and where sufficient evidence is available, cases are submitted to the prosecuting authorities.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since inception all those protection orders made under the provisions of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976; and the body which the Secretary of State has consulted under section 1(3)(b) of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 in the case of each such protection order made.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:1976–79: None.
  1980: The Rivers Tweed and Eye Protection Order 1980 (renewed in 1983, 1986 and 1988).
  1981: None.
  1982: The Upper Spey and Associated Waters Protection Order 1982 (renewed in 1985 and 1988).
  1983: The River Tummel Catchment Area Protection Order 1983 (renewed in 1986 and 1988).
  The River Lunan Catchment Area Protection Order 1983 (renewed in 1986 and 1988).
  1984 and 1985: None.
  1986: The River Tay Catchment Area Protection Order 1986 (renewed in 1990).

  421
  1988: The West Strathclyde Protection Order 1988.
  1989: None.
  1990: The River Earn Catchment Area Protection Order 1990.
  The River Don Catchment Area (Part) Protection Order 1990.

  My right hon. Friend has appointed a Consultative Committee on Freshwater Fisheries which is consulted under section 1(3)(b) of the 1976 Act on proposals for, and other matters relating to, protection orders.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the question of access to salmon fishings in Scotland; and whether he will include a comparative study of access to fishing in Scotland with other countries such as the Republic of Ireland and France with respect to European Community law.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government have no plans to review the question of access to salmon fishings in Scotland.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all those protection orders which have been varied or revoked by the Secretary of State under section 1(10) of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify the destination of all payments made by the Secretary of State under section 5 of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such payments have been made.

  Fishing (Protection Orders)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all those proposals for a protection order under the provisions of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 presently under consideration by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Two proposals are presently under consideration, one for Loch Awe, Loch Avich and the River Avich and the other for Loch Morar and the River Morar.

  Net Capital Expenditure in Scotland (£ million)

  Year

  Chemicals

  Man-made Fibres

  Textiles

  Leather

  Footwear and Clothing

  Motor Vehicles

  1979

  n.a.

  n.a.

  21·7

  1·0

  9·1

  17·2

  1980

  n.a.

  n.a.

  15·4

  0·9

  9·2

  16·9

  1981

  n.a.

  n.a.

  12·3

  0·6

  8·1

  7·4

  1982

  n.a.

  n.a.

  13·4

  0·3

  7·0

  10·6

  1983

  n.a.

  n.a.

  13·2

  0·6

  9·1

  6·8

  1984

  n.a.

  n.a.

  18·0

  1·0

  10·2

  3·7

  1985

  n.a.

  n.a.

  29·8

  1·2

  14·2

  14·6

  1986

  n.a.

  n.a.

  30·7

  0·8

  10·5

  9·0

  1987

  n.a.

  n.a.

  31·8

  1·3

  13·8

  2·9

  19881

  n.a.

  n.a.

  33·9

  3·2

  18·0

  8·2

  Source: Annual census of production.

  1 The definition of net capital expenditure changed between 1987 and 1988. Up to 1987, contributors were asked to include annual payments for assets acquired on a financial leasing basis. From 1988, they were asked to include the total value of such assets as capital expenditure during the year in which they were acquired. This change is estimated to have increased total net capital expenditure for the United Kingdom as a whole by up to 7 per cent.

  Figures are not available for demand or capacity.

  Acute Medical Services
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he expects to announce his decision on the Lanarkshire health board's proposals to eliminate acute medical services in Clydesdale constituency; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the projected figure for closure of acute medical services for each year from 1991 to 1994 in each health board area in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards are responsible for drawing up strategic plans for all services, including acute services. These plans may contain proposals for closures as well as for new capital investment. As strategy reviews are undertaken on a continuing basis by individual boards, it is not possible to give a full indication of new acute services developments and any consequent closures for the years 1991–1994. Lanarkshire health board is currently preparing an approval in principle submission for its acute services proposals. When this is received, I shall consider all aspects of the proposals, including the representations made by the hon. Member.

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the percentage increase in investment each year in Scotland since 1979 in real terms in(a) chemicals, (b) man-made fibres, (c) textiles, (d) clothing, (e) footwear and (f) motor vehicle manufacturing; to what extent this has resulted in an increase in capacity; what has been the increase in the demand for such goods; and whether he will publish in each case the increase in capacity since 1979, the increase in output as a percentage of 1979 and the figures for import penetration from the EEC and the rest of the world now and in 1979.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Net capital expenditure at current prices is available from the annual census of production. The figures are set out in the table.
  423
  Output figures in real terms are published regularly in indexed form. The following table gives an index of production series for the sectors required, at published level, scaled to 1979 = 100.

  Index of industrial output in Scotland (1979 = 100)

  Chemicals and man-made fibres

  Textiles,leather, footwear and clothing

  Motor vehicles

  1979

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1980

  91·1

  89·1

  100·9

  1981

  88·1

  83·2

  83·3

  1982

  88·9

  77·1

  81·6

  1983

  96·6

  78·0

  95·7

  1984

  97·6

  86·3

  110·9

  1985

  100·8

  95·8

  113·4

  1986

  104·8

  92·6

  125·9

  1987

  102·4

  98·2

  143·8

  1988

  103·9

  102·7

  160·7

  1989

  105·1

  99·6

  173·8

  Source: Index of industrial production and construction—Scotland.

  Figures for import penetration are unavailable.

  Health Board Managers
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the salaries paid to each of the Scottish health boards' managers; their projected salary increase for next year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The salary ranges for Scottish Health Board General Managers effective from 1 September 1990 are set out in the table. Progression up the range is dependent on individual performance. No decisions on the salary ranges from 1 September 1991 have yet been taken.

  Health board

  Range

  Argyll and Clyde

  £46,660 to £60,650

  Ayrshire and Arran

  £45,570 to £59,240

  Borders

  £42,750 to £55,570

  CSA

  £45,570 to £59,240

  Dumfries and Galloway

  £42,750 to £55,570

  Fife

  £45,570 to £59,240

  Forth Valley

  £45,570 to £59,240

  Grampian

  £47,200 to £61,360

  Greater Glasgow

  £53,710 to £69,820

  Highland

  £45,570 to £59,240

  Lanarkshire

  £46,660 to £60,650

  Lothian

  £51,270 to £66,650

  Orkney

  £33,640 to £43,730

  Shetland

  £33,640 to £43,730

  Tayside

  £47,200 to £61,360

  Western Isles

  £33,640 to £43,730

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the change in(a) the number of employees in employment and (b) the number of employees in employment in manufacturing in Scotland between June 1979 and June 1990; and what the changes are in percentage terms.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The number of employees in employment in Scotland fell by 102,000 between June 1979 and June 1990, a decrease of 5 per cent. The number of manufacturing employees in employment in Scotland fell by 180,000 between June 1979 and June 1990, a decrease 424
  of 30 per cent. Although the number of employees in employment in Scotland fell between 1979 and 1990, other components of the labour force have grown, notably self-employed which have increased by 87,000. At over 2·3 million, the civilian work force in Scotland is at its highest ever level.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the numbers of unemployed in Scotland in December 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The seasonally adjusted series of unemployment provides the only figures that are comparable over the time period requested. In December 1989, the seasonally adjusted level of unemployed claimants in Scotland was 211,200 compared with 141,500 in December 1979.

  General Practice
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the numbers both in absolute and percentage terms of general practitioners in Greater Glasgow health board who have a negative balance in their practice profile;

  (2) if he will give the current expenditure by Greater Glasgow health board on reimbursement of general practitioners for ancillary staff and the projected expenditure following the introduction of practice profiles;

  (3) if he will give the basis on which the practice profile is calculated in determining staff reimbursement cost for general practitioners in the Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board's allocation for the financial year ending 31 March 1991 in respect of general practitioners' ancillary staff is £7,073,000. The board has indicated in returns to the management executive that it has spent £3,610,180 to October, the latest month for which figures are available. The distrubution of these funds to individual practices, and the management of the ancillary staff scheme, are matters for Greater Glasgow health board, within the terms of the state of fees and allowances.

  Asthma
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations his Department has received from Action Asthma about its work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have obtained a copy of the Action Asthma press information pack which launched the national asthma survey on 3 September 1990. I shall be interested to learn of the outcome of the survey in due course.

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many open heart operations have been undertaken this year in Scotland; how many people are on waiting lists waiting for open heart operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of 2,969 cardiac procedures were undertaken in Scotland between 1 October 1989 and 30 September 1990. There were 1,268 people in Scotland waiting for cardiac operations at 30
  425
  September 1990. Cardiac surgery services have been systematically expanded by the Government over recent years. Since central funding began in 1983, the number of cardiac operations performed in Scotland has increased from 1,717 to 2,518 by March 1990. This year an extra £467,000 has been provided to Greater Glasgow health board under the waiting list fund initiative to enable an additional 80 procedures to be undertaken.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all categories of people who are exempt from the community charge in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The categories of persons exempted from the personal community charge in Scotland are set out in schedule lA to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended.

  Migration
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the net civilian outmigration from Scotland in the 12 months ending June.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not yet available. It is planned that it will be published, together with the registrar-general's 1990 mid-year population estimates for Scotland, at the end of April 1991.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hill farmers there are in Scotland on a county by county basis for the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department does not collect information directly on the numbers of hill farmers in Scotland but does collect data on the numbers of holdings within the less favoured areas, which include the main hill areas. The holdings information, including an estimate for minor holdings, at June 1990 is as shown in the table.

  Estimated number of holdings within less favoured areas

  Region

  Estimated number

  Borders

  1,200

  Central

  1,080

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,580

  Fife

  150

  Grampian

  5,100

  Highland

  8,670

  Lothian

  420

  Strathclyde

  6,350

  Tayside

  1,270

  Orkney

  2,170

  Shetland

  2,650

  Western Isles

  5,970

  Schools
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the level of expenditure on books and equipment per child in Scotland in constant prices, in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is given in the table, which has been compiled from local 426
  authority financial returns. Expenditure on equipment was not separately identified in these returns until 1982–83. There has been some variation from year to year in recording expenditure under the respective headings and the figures for expenditure on books may include some expenditure on equipment and vice versa.

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials adjusted to 1989–90 prices using the GDP deflator

  Year

  Books (£)

  Equipment (£)

  1978–79

  14·14

  n/a

  1979–80

  14·44

  n/a

  1980–81

  12·37

  n/a

  1981–82

  12·22

  n/a

  1982–83

  12·03

  24·90

  1983–84

  15·13

  21·92

  1984–85

  14·98

  24·92

  1985–86

  13·55

  23·11

  1986–87

  16·01

  24·47

  1987–88

  12·16

  29·82

  1988–89

  15·07

  30·91

  West Lothian Hospital
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects phase II of the West Lothian district general hospital to be completed; and if he will list the medical services which will be provided in it.

  Mr. Lang
  The building work of phase II of the West Lothian district general hospital will be completed by this summer and will be commissioned ready for patient use by
  April 1992.

  Present plans are to provide the following medical services:

  General surgery

  Orthopaedic surgery ENT surgery

  General medicine

  Paediatric medicine

  Gynaecology

  Obstetrics

  Special care baby unit

  Intensive therapy unit

  Coronary care unit

  Plastic surgery and burns unit

  Geriatric assessment

  Geriatric long stay

  Acute psychiatry

  Psychogeriatric

  General practitioner unit

  Young chronic sick unit

  Sandeels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in identifying the cause of poor recruitment of sandeels in research into the Shetland sandeel population; and what evidence there is that this is due to natural factors operating in the first few months of life.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since poor recruitment to the Shetland sandeel population first occurred during a period of high spawning stock, it cannot be attributed to low egg production and must be the result of natural factors operating in the first few months of life. A research programme has been initiated to investigate the factors affecting the mortality and dispersal of larval and 0-group sandeels and the results of the first phase are currently being analysed.
  427
  The seas around Shetland are known to comprise part of an hydrographic system which can greatly influence the larval dynamics for those fish species where adequate studies have been made—for example, herring. Studies have suggested that sandeel larval abundance in that area can be affected by changing hydrographic circumstances. In addition, studies in the north-west Atlantic suggest that where stocks of pelagic predators such as herring and mackerel were reduced then there was a congruent increase in the abundance of larval sandeels. Conversely, in the north-east Atlantic herring numbers have increased dramatically in the last decade. Herring are capable of being voracious predators of sandeel larvae and the overlapping distribution of the two stocks around Shetland may be relevant to sandeel recruitment dynamics.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the distribution and abundance of 0-group, 1-group and breeding age sandeels in those areas of Shetland that have been studied in 1990, including Fair Isle, compare with surveys from previous years as revealed by research trawls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Trawl survey data from fishing grounds around Shetland, including Fair Isle, can be used to give an indication of the relative abundance of 0-group, 1-group and breeding age (2+ group) sandeels. These data are summarised in the table.

  Mean numbers of sandeel caught per 30-minute survey haul from grounds off Shetland, 1984 to 1990

  Year

  Age

  0

  1

  2+

  1984

  891,898

  47,592

  48,198

  1985

  202,826

  78,055

  76,784

  1986

  683,044

  56,653

  36,878

  1987

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1988

  141,457

  1,421

  39,868

  1989

  863,181

  9,283

  11,974

  1990

  90,148

  30,118

  8,851

  1 No survey in 1987.

  Preliminary analysis of the distribution of sandeels between the fishing grounds suggests that the distribution of 0-group fish in August 1990 was similar to that in preceding years and that the distribution of 0-group fish has changed little since the start of the surveys in 1984. Similarly, the distribution of 1-group fish is comparable to that in preceding years. The analysis suggests that the distribution of breeding age (2+) fish varies from year to year with little correlation in their distribution between years.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the main predators of 0, 1 and 2 group sandeels, respectively, in Shetland water; and what evidence Her Majesty's Government have for any changes in predation levels in the last 10 years.

  Deaths from Breast Cancer 1979–89, Males (1CD 91 175) and Female (ICD 91 174)

  Age

  15–24

  25–34

  35–44

  45–54

  55–64

  65+

  Total

  1979

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  7

  Female

  0

  17

  73

  217

  261

  608

  1,176

  1980

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Female

  0

  14

  104

  195

  299

  602

  1,214

  428
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The main predators on these sandeels are seabirds, seals and fish. The limited data available on changes between years do not allow firm conclusions to be made.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest estimates for the level of recruitment for the Shetland sandeel stock for each year from 1984; what estimates were available for the same year in June 1988 and June 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Levels of recruitment to the Shetland sandeel stock since 1984, as estimated by assessments made in the years 1988–90, are as follows:

  Recruitment to Shetland sandeel stock, 1984–89 expressed as millions of 0-group on 1 July.

  Assessment

  0-group recruits in year

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1984

  29,188

  27,065

  21,212

  1985

  21,343

  29,573

  19,473

  1986

  19,451

  48,955

  24,924

  1987

  2,196

  2,258

  3,550

  1988

  20,750

  1,273

  6,440

  1989

  —

  1—

  25,327

  1990

  —

  —

  1—

  1 No estimate possible due to closure of fishery in second half of year.

  The assessments made in 1989 and 1990 used an improved method of analysis. In 1989 and possibly also in 1990, fishing was concentrated in areas where the older fish predominate, thus changing the exploitation pattern and disrupting the assessment. Also, and in recent years assessment has been inhibited by low fishing mortality in the Shetland sandeel stock.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what would be the current size of the Shetland sandeel spawning stock, according to current stock assessment models, had there been no fishing mortality since 1982.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is a very wide number of possible models which might be used to predict spawning stock biomass in the absence of fishing mortality. A simple model which assumes recruitment in the absence of fishing is the same as that estimated to have occurred since 1982 predicts a spawning stock biomass for ages 2–5 of 23,600 tonnes in 1990.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will break down the total numbers of deaths caused by breast cancer for each year since 1979 into ages 16 to 25 years, 25 to 34 years, 35 to 44 years, 45 to 54 years, 55 to 64 years, and 65 years and over.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:
  429

  Age

  15–24

  25–34

  35–44

  45–54

  55–64

  65+

  Total

  1981

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  7

  Female

  0

  13

  63

  200

  268

  631

  1,175

  1982

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  7

  8

  Female

  0

  14

  69

  215

  294

  636

  1,228

  1983

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  8

  9

  Female

  0

  8

  81

  192

  293

  688

  1,262

  1984

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  6

  Female

  0

  12

  76

  193

  301

  660

  1,242

  1985

  Male

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  7

  12

  Female

  1

  11

  80

  187

  267

  706

  1,252

  1986

  Male

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  7

  13

  Female

  1

  9

  66

  203

  292

  742

  1,313

  1987

  Male

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  8

  11

  Female

  0

  12

  67

  163

  287

  705

  1,234

  1988

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  7

  Female

  0

  12

  76

  165

  253

  756

  1,261

  1989

  Male

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  4

  7

  Female

  0

  10

  78

  200

  298

  770

  1,356

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision.

  Telephone Taping
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate has received any requests for an inquiry into the illegal taping of a telephone conversation of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) during May or June 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has received no such requests.

  Training
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the numbers of people leaving employment training having completed (i) up to four weeks, (ii) four to 12 weeks, (iii) 12 to 26 weeks, (iv)

  Actual length of stay

  Up to 4 weeks per cent.

  Over 4 weeks up to 3 months per cent.

  Over 3 months up to 6 months per cent.

  Over 6 months up to 9 months per cent.

  Over 9 months up to 12 months per cent.

  Over 12 months per cent.

  January to March 1990

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  14

  24

  23

  11

  23

  4

  Lothian and Borders

  12

  20

  21

  11

  31

  5

  Lanarkshire

  15

  24

  19

  9

  27

  4

  Highlands and Islands

  8

  28

  30

  7

  21

  6

  Grampian and Tayside

  17

  25

  26

  7

  21

  4

  Glasgow City

  14

  22

  19

  10

  30

  5

  Central and Fife

  13

  22

  19

  8

  36

  3

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  20

  21

  9

  33

  5

  April to June 1990

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  16

  29

  19

  13

  21

  2

  Lothian and Borders

  13

  31

  17

  10

  24

  4

  Lanarkshire

  13

  26

  18

  10

  27

  5

  Highlands and Islands

  7

  37

  28

  8

  12

  8

  Grampian and Tayside

  12

  34

  25

  12

  12

  3

  Glasgow City

  13

  30

  18

  12

  23

  4

  Central and Fife

  13

  24

  20

  13

  28

  2

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  12

  28

  16

  10

  29

  4

  430
  26 to 38 weeks, (v) 38 to 52 weeks and (vi) over 52 weeks' training in each month from January, for each of the Training Agency areas covering (a) Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll, (b) Lothian and Borders,(c) Lanarkshire, (d) Highlands and Islands,(e) Grampian and Tayside, (f) Glasgow City, (g) Central and Fife and (h) Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: The information is not available in the form requested. Information about leavers is obtained through a survey and returns from leavers are incomplete. This survey provides data on a quarterly basis as set out below about the percentages of people leaving employment training. In considering the information it is important to bear in mind that entering permanent employment is a major reason for people ceasing to participate in employment training.
  431

  Up to 4 weeks per cent.

  Over 4 weeks up to 3 months per cent.

  Over 3 months up to 6 months per cent.

  Over 6 months up to 9 months per cent.

  Over 9 months up to 12 months per cent.

  Over 12 months per cent.

  July to September 1990

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  10

  24

  23

  12

  26

  4

  Lothian and Borders

  13

  24

  22

  12

  27

  3

  Lanarkshire

  14

  21

  20

  12

  30

  3

  Highlands and Islands

  8

  31

  31

  8

  20

  1

  Grampian and Tayside

  12

  25

  27

  12

  21

  3

  Glasgow City

  13

  25

  23

  10

  25

  3

  Central and Fife

  13

  28

  20

  13

  24

  1

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  21

  24

  11

  32

  3

  Health Service
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what honorarium is given to each member of the health boards; and how many meetings each board holds per annum.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: Regarding an honorarium for health board members, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Friday 6 July to the hon. Member for Tayside, North ("Mr. Walker) at column 733. Each health board meets as often as it finds necessary to conduct its business, but procedural regulations require meetings to be held not less than once every three months. Members are also involved in meetings of committees and working parties and they serve on a variety of appeal panels.

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what conclusion he has reached on the expression of interest received from Pembrokeshire district health authority for national health service trust status.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have invited the health authority to proceed to work up and submit an application to become a trust on the basis set out in its expression of interest.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish for consultation the draft orders with attainment targets and programmes of study for history and geography in the national curriculum.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have published today for consultation draft orders with associated documents setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for history and geography in the national curriculum as

  Table 1

  Advertising and promotion expenditure: 1989–90

  £000

  Television

  Press

  Other

  Total

  Agriculture

  —

  4

  344

  348

  Education

  —

  —

  147

  147

  Health

  53

  3

  299

  355

  Industry, Employment, etc

  —

  50

  201

  251

  Transport

  4

  123

  101

  228

  Community charge

  —

  123

  327

  450

  432
  required by section 21(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Advertising
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) further to his answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 11 December,Official Report, columns 332–33, if he will list against each Department and area of responsibility within his Department (a) the expenditure relevant to that department or responsibility in respect of press advertising, (b) the expenditure for television advertising and (c) the figure for other advertising and promotion;

  (2) whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on (a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio and (c) other advertising and promotions in respect of (1) health; (2) education, (3) agriculture, (4) the Valleys initiative, (5) employment and economic issues, (6) promotion of tourism and (7) environmental issues;

  (3) if he will list the 10 most expensive items of expenditure within each of the headings of press advertising, television advertising and other advertising and promotion by his Department in each of the last three years;

  (4) if he will list the publicity campaigns that have been undertaken by his Department in each of the last three years and the sums spent on each in respect of (a) press advertising, (b) television advertising and (c) other forms of advertising and promotion on each.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answers 17–20 December 1990]: A detailed breakdown of expenditure by the Welsh Office on advertising and promotion in 1989–90 is set out in table 1.

  Table 2 provides comparable information in respect of the 10 most expensive items/campaigns undertaken in that year.

  Equivalent breakdowns for the years prior to 1989–90 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  433

  Television

  Press

  Other

  Total

  CADW

  —

  30

  133

  163

  Other

  —

  21

  206

  227

  Total

  57

  354

  1,758

  2,169

  Table 2

  Major advertising and promotion items/campaigns:1989–90

  £000

  Television

  Press

  Other

  Total

  Community charge

  —

  123

  327

  450

  Festival of food and farming

  —

  4

  275

  279

  Misuse of drugs

  53

  1

  77

  131

  National curriculum

  —

  —

  103

  103

  Enterprise Wales

  —

  16

  53

  69

  Health exhibition

  —

  —

  64

  64

  Drink drive

  4

  —

  53

  57

  Farm conservation grant

  —

  —

  43

  43

  Urdd Eisteddfod

  —

  —

  40

  40

  National Health Service forum

  —

  —

  35

  35

  Village Schools
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the local management of primary schools, with particular reference to the future management and continuation of small village schools in rural Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local management of schools was introduced for the benefit of all schools. The arrangements enable the local education authorities to take account of disproportionately high costs faced by small schools where they consider it appropriate to do so. Accordingly, rural schools need face no greater threat to their existence under LMS than they did from previous funding arrangements.

  As regards the future management of small schools, we have recently consulted LEAs and others about extending delegation of responsibility for managing their budget share to all primary schools by 1 April 1994.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to increase the provision of housing for young people in rural Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Gentleman today.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums of money within his Department's budgets for(a) press advertising, (b) television, (c) radio and (d) other activities of promotion and publicity have been related to tackling the problem of alcohol misuse in each of the last five years and in the present financial year; what percentage this constitutes of the finances available under each heading; and what percentage the total for each year represents of his Department's total publicity budget for that year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Funding is made available from the Welsh Office to a number of agencies and organisations for the promotion of sensible drinking habits. It is not possible centrally to identify separate publicity activities.

  Cardiff Bay
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the latest estimated cost of the Cardiff bay barrage, including the initial design and consultancy costs and the costs to his Department of the Bill and its subsequent passage through the House;

  (2) what are the latest figures for public loans, grants and subsidies to the Cardiff Bay development corporation from the beginning of the project to its completion.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest estimates of the cost of the development strategy for Cardiff bay, including the proposed barrage, were contained in the letter of 13 December 1990 from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The costs of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill have been met by Cardiff Bay development corporation and no significant additional costs have been incurred by my Department.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the number of new jobs which will be created by the works currently being undertaken by the Cardiff Bay development corporation; and if he will list these new jobs by category of employment;

  (2) what is the estimated number of new jobs which will result from the works currently being undertaken by the Cardiff Bay development corporation (a) if a barrage is constructed and (b) if a barrage is not constructed; and if he will list the jobs, by category of employment, which will be created if a barrage is constructed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The works currently being undertaken by Cardiff Bay development corporation are aimed primarily at bringing land forward for development by the private sector, whose projects will create employment. It is therefore not meaningful to link the creation of permanent jobs with specific activities of the corporation.

  The economic appraisal of the development strategy estimated that the following numbers of jobs would be created after 15 to 20 years:
  435

  Type of development

  with barrage

  without barrage

  B1 (Use class B1)

  18,050

  7,950

  Industrial

  1,050

  1,850

  Retail

  3,900

  2,850

  Leisure

  2,350

  450

  25,350

  13,100

  Job Losses

  500

  400

  Total

  24,850

  12,700

  In addition, it is estimated that the following indirect jobs, that is those created through the supply of goods and services to the newly developed areas as well as induced jobs, those arising through the spending of those newly employed in the area and as a result of the indirect employment, would be created.

  Direct (net)

  Indirect

  Total

  With barrage

  24,850

  7,450

  32,300

  Without barrage

  12,700

  3,800

  16,500

  River Taff (Sewage Discharges)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated tonnage of raw sewage and partly treated sewage released into the River Taff and its tributaries by sewage treatment plants in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90; and what is the projected tonnage for 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available. I understand that most of the raw or partially treated sewage discharged into the River Taff is from emergency or storm sewer overflows. The operation of such overflows and volumns discharged vary according to weather conditions. The consented volumes of discharges and the results of sampling of controlled waters undertaken by the National Rivers Authority are entered on to public registers maintained by the authority.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are to be taken to stop the flow of raw effluent into the River Taff and its tributaries from sewage treatment plants working in that catchment area.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority and those discharging the effluent. I have asked the NRA to write to the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

  Funerals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will bring forward legislation to amend the Town and Country Planning (Use Clauses) Order, S.I. (1987), No. 764, so as to exclude chapels of rest, mortuaries and funeral parlours from the category of "Director of Funerals" in class A1.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This matter was considered as part of the review which preceded the 1987 order and it was decided to make no change.

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 13 December,Official Report, column 508, he
  436
  will place in the Library a copy of the advice to employees on their duty to avoid any conflict of interest between their responsibilities as national health service employees and their private and commercial interests, or a full summary of guidance that has been given to employees, which employees are expected to observe pending the publication of any fresh and authoritative advice by his Department.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Advice given to staff is essentially a matter for individual health authorities as employers.

  Existing departmental guidance which is of long standing is limited to a statement of principle as regards the expected conduct of staff in connection with the acceptance of gifts and hospitality and the pursuit of private transactions with contractors and other suppliers of goods to the NHS. The new central guidance now being prepared will update and expand upon those principles and will set out general rules to be followed in circumstances where the private interests of employees may conflict with their public duties or where the suspicion of such a conflict may arise.

  Welsh National Opera
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the sums of money from all sources which he is making available directly from his Department or in conjunction with others to the Welsh National Opera in the present financial year; what were the comparable figures in 1989–90; and if he will list the projected figures for 1991–92 and subsequent years insofar as firm or tentative projections have been made;

  (2) what discussions have taken place between Welsh Office Ministers, or officials and the Welsh National Opera on finances; what differences have arisen over the financial contribution of Government to the Welsh National Opera; and what differences still remain;

  (3) if he will make a full statement on financial arrangements for the Welsh National Opera in the present financial year and in 1991 and future financial years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh National Opera company is funded jointly by the Arts Council of Great Britain and the Welsh Arts Council, which is itself a committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain and is funded by them. The Arts Council of Great Britain is funded by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts about the financial position of the Welsh National Opera company.

  We have received representations both from representatives of the Welsh National Opera company direct and from others on its behalf about the implications of the Arts Council of Great Britain's decision not to give the company a grant from the enhancement fund in 1991–92. We are informed that further discussions are planned between the company and the Arts Council of Great Britain. We welcome this and hope for a satisfactory outcome.

  Health Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will order an investigation into Powys health authority's recent inability to find money to buy wardrobes for long stay patients on ward D at Bronllys.
  437
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No. This is a matter for Powys health authority, which advises that the residents on Defynnog ward have individual wardrobes.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he intends to make to the level of finances he will give to health authorities in Wales and the way the cash is distributed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend is considering the changes needed to bring the distribution of resources to health authorities in Wales in line with the new arrangements introduced by the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. The service was consulted on proposals for capital funding last year and consideration is now being given to the detail of their implementation. A consultation paper on options for a new revenue formula was issued last week and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The level of funding required by health authorities in Wales is determined each year in the context of public expenditure plans and my right hon. Friend will be making an announcement in due course on the allocations to health authorities for the next financial year.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the increase of £183 million in expenditure on the national health service in Wales, announced in his Department's press release of 12 December, includes the £11 million to be found from cuts and income generation schemes which he refers to in the same press release.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to clarify the position.

  The expected £11 million from cost improvements and income generation is in addition to the £183 million increase in Welsh Health Spending announced in December last year. The NHS in Wales will therefore benefit from both the record cash increase and the internally generated funds in its continuing drive to put the interests of patients first and deliver the highest possible standard of care.

  It is, or course, wrong and misleading to refer to genuine efficiency savings as cuts.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the last three financial years, the current financial year and the next financial year(a) the forecast of health service inflation which was being made by his Department when the announcement of provision for each of the above years was made, (b) the actual level of health service inflation for each year for which it is known and his latest estimate for 1990–91, (c) the forecast of general inflation made by the Government and at the nearest available date to the announcement referred to in (a) above and (d) the actual level of general inflation for each of the years for which it is known and his latest estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  When notifying health authorities of their cash allocations each year, the Department informs authorities of the forecast level of general inflation which has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement. For the years 1987–88 to 1990–91 these forecasts were:
  438

  Per cent.

  1987–88

  3·75

  1988–89

  4·5

  1989–90

  5·0

  1990–91

  5·0

  Authorities are also advised that they should make prudent provision for pay and price rises within the cash allocation which they receive. While the announcement of allocations for 1991–92 has yet to be made, the forecast level of general inflation next year, as announced by the Chancellor in his autumn statement is 6 per cent.

  The cash increases provided to health authorities at the start of the year exceeded the Chancellor's forecasts. In addition, authorities have received, during the course of each financial year, additional recurrent funding to meet the excess cost (over and above the level of forecast inflation) of review bodies' pay awards (for doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives and for the professions allied to medicine). In 1988–89, authorities also receive additional recurring funds to meet the cost of the clinical nurses regrading review.

  Information relating to the actual level of pay and price inflation experienced by Welsh health authorities is not available centrally. This will vary from authority to authority depending on the proportion and composition of their spending on pay and non pay expenditure. However, information is compiled by the Department of Health on the actual overall level of inflation experienced within hospital and community health services' expenditure in England and for the period 1987–88 to 1989–90 the figures were:

  Per cent

  1987–88

  8·5

  1988–89

  10·5

  1989–90

  7·3

  An equivalent figure for 1990–91 is not yet available.

  The information requested on the actual level of general inflation in the years 1987–88 to 1989–90, together with the latest estimated for 1990–91, is as follows:

  Per cent

  1987–88

  5·45

  1988–89

  7·30

  1989–90

  6·37

  11990–91

  8·00

  1 estimate

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the last three financial years, the current financial year and the next financial year (1) the total amount of direct Welsh Office funds, not including cost savings or income generation, allocated to each district health authority in Wales and for each special health authority in Wales and (2) the total expenditure authorised by his Department for each district health authority and special health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested regarding the total allocations (ie revenue and capital) made to each district health authority in Wales and to the two special health authorities in the period 1987–88 to 1990–91 is provided in the table. Allocations to health authorities and to the two special health authorities for 1991–92 will be announced later this month.
  439
  Health authorities have a statutory responsibility to contain their cash expenditure within their notified cash allocations. In the event that an authority's cash spending exceeds its attributable resources, the resultant overspending is retrospectively legitimised by an increase in

  Total Allocation

  £ million

  District Health Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  Clwyd

  97·045

  108·964

  115·684

  124·004

  East Dyfed

  59·335

  67·269

  77·402

  84·958

  Gwent

  117·356

  129·822

  138·893

  146·224

  Gwynedd

  59·288

  64·496

  68·264

  72·364

  Mid Glamorgan

  136·042

  151·923

  161·917

  174·168

  Pembrokeshire

  22·498

  25·906

  29·046

  30·929

  Powys

  27·243

  29·992

  32·569

  35·035

  South Glamorgan

  155·953

  173·657

  188·941

  207·851

  West Glamorgan

  102·820

  115·949

  123·696

  130·814

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  28·052

  26·494

  28·448

  26·597

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales

  1·218

  1·838

  2·303

  22·257

  1 Notified allocation as at 9 January.

  2 A further allocation of up to £0·3 million is available to the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, against which they may submit bids for specific developments in 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list showing what proportion of the money spent(a) by the Welsh Office itself and (b) by each health authority in Wales on training for members of the new health authority boards went on food and accommodation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) on 5 December 1990 at column 151 two events have been held at the all-Wales level. The costs of these have in the main been met by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority on behalf of the health service in Wales. Details are as follows:

  Total cost £

  Food/accommodation £

  October briefing event

  124,128

  17,511

  November event

  16,655

  10,055

  1 Excludes accommodation costs of delegates met by individual health authorities.

  The Department does not keep records of training costs incurred at the local level by health authorities.

  Programme for the valleys: Expenditure June 1988 to March 1993 (£ million)

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 estimated outturn

  1991–92/1992–93 provision

  Urban programme

  11·95

  16

  18·5

  41·5

  Urban development/urban investment grants1

  2·6

  (5·2)

  7·2

  (7·2)

  6·48

  10

  Regional industrial grants1

  28·875

  (39·8)

  16·1

  (38·0)

  26·9

  42·5

  Welsh Development Agency

  Factories

  20·73

  22·5

  28·5

  50

  Land reclamation

  11·9

  15·5

  18·5

  40

  Environmental

  0·78

  0·6

  1·5

  3

  Urban Renewal Unit

  0·7

  1·57

  3·278

  5·25

  Investment

  2·236

  2·41

  2·6

  —

  Business development

  0·72

  1

  1·2

  3·1

  Corporate planning/research

  0·1

  0·1

  0·05

  —

  440
  allocation to cover the overspend. The overspending is recovered in the subsequent financial year when a reduction, equivalent to the level of the previous years' overspend, is made to the allocation of the authority concerned.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the amount that Powys health authority is spending on new flagpoles; and if he will order an investigation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Powys health authority advises that there are no plans to purchase new flagpoles.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list those projects which constitute the £800 million to be spent under the valleys initiative, indicating(a) what proportion of that sum will fall directly on his Department's vote and (b) the amount of money to be spent on each project in each year covered by the £800 million total.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Provision for the programme for the valleys area over the five years from June 1988 to March 1993 is about £800 million. It covers a wide variety of programmes and it is not possible to list the individual projects except at disproportionate cost.

  A breakdown of outturn for 1988–89 to 1990–91 and of provision for 1991–93 for the different categories of expenditure is shown in the following table.

  Seventy per cent. of the £781·709 million falls within my Department's vote.
  441

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 estimated outturn

  1991–92/1992–93 provision

  Roads

  11·1

  11·73

  16·5

  42

  Training agency

  48·6

  49·67

  45·68

  90

  Total

  140·291

  144·38

  169·688

  327·35

  Overall total

  £781·709

  1 These programmes are demand led. Funds available for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are shown in brackets.

  Small Firms Counselling Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the future of the small firms counselling service in(a) the county of Clwyd and (b) Wales; and how many small firms counsellors there are in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for the small firms service will transfer to the Training and Enterprise councils in Wales on 1 April. The service in Clwyd will be the responsibility of the North East Wales and North West Wales TECs. There are currently 40 small firms counsellors in Wales.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money local authorities have used from the proceeds of council housing sales to repay Government debt.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government propose any further assistance to Ealing in respect of short-term leases relating to homeless people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department's decisions on housing revenue account subsidy in 1991–92 were announced on 19 December. We propose to make available additional subsidy of up to £25 million in 1991–92 towards the costs of renewal and replacement of existing short term leases. £2,082,375 of this would be for Ealing.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached about future grant arrangements for special needs provision by housing associations.

  Sir Charles Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect on the provision of move-on housing in rented buildings of the recently announced revenue support from new special needs schemes in other than housing action group-funded buildings; what particular consideration he has given to the implications for people with special needs requiring accommodation to live independently in the community; and if he will make a statement.
  442
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he intends to make a statement on the future funding of hostels providing special needs accommodation;

  (2) if he will review his decision to exclude health authority, Department of Social Security, Home Office and other externally funded projects from entitlement to hostel deficit grant and special needs management allowance.

  Sir George Young
  New capital and revenue grant arrangements are to be introduced from April 1991 on the basis of proposals prepared by a joint working party comprising representatives of the Department, the Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations. The effect will be to establish a clearer and more cost-effective framework for the future funding of special needs provision by housing associations. The arrangements will, however, need to be kept under review in the light of developments on community care.

  A new flat-rate special needs management allowance (SNMA) will replace the present hostel deficit grant (HDG) for new schemes from April 1991. Schemes already in receipt of HDG and eligible for SNMA will be transferred to SNMA by steps over a period of five years starting from April 1992.

  The SNMA rate for 1991–92 will be £2,000 per bedspace (1989–90 prices, to be revalued to 1991–92 prices). The allowance will be available for special needs provision in self-contained as well as shared accommodation.

  On the capital side, special needs schemes will from April 1991 be brought within the fixed housing association grant (HAG) arrangements which already apply to general needs schemes but will be eligible for grant at 100 per cent. of approved cost.

  The Housing Corporation will be carrying out formal consultations on a new determination under the Housing Act 1988 to bring SNMA into effect from this April. It will at the same time prepare and consult on detailed guidance for associations both on SNMA and on the changes in the capital grant arrangements.

  I have also considered whether SNMA should be subject to the same restrictions on eligibility as were announced for HDG by my hon. Friend, the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) when he was Minister for Housing and Planning on 8 November at columns 14–15. I have concluded that these restrictions, in particular to schemes capital funded through the corporation, must in the main continue but that, subject to the availability of resources, the corporation should be able to consider for SNMA certain categories of schemes which do not require HAG. These are schemes capital funded by a charitable organisation, leased schemes and

  443
  schemes using existing housing association accommodation no longer required for general needs. In supporting such schemes the corporation will need to ensure that its SNMA commitments are contained within provision for current and future years. It will also wish to satisfy itself that the scheme meets the priorities established for its approved development programme and is not tied to meeting the requirements of another organisation through, for example, exclusive nomination rights.

  Associations which had applications for HDG budget approval awaiting decision by the corporation at the time of the 8 November announcement will be able to re-submit under the new SNMA arrangements any of those schemes which they consider meet the SNMA eligibility criteria.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the arrangements for notice and the actual notice given by the last chairman of the London Docklands development corporation prior to his resignation; and how much severance pay and pension entitlement he received.

  Mr. Key
  Chairmen and members of public bodies are public appointees and are not normally required to give notice if they resign.

  The previous chairman of the LDDC, Sir Christopher Benson, did not resign but completed his appointment in the normal way.

  It is not Government policy to disclose the individual pension arrangements for members of public bodies.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance the Government are giving Nottinghamshire county council to meet additional expenditure incurred following the bad weather; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We currently have no information to suggest that Nottinghamshire county council incurred costs greater than those which it could be expected to meet as part of its normal responsibilities for coping with winter weather. But we will consider any request for assistance made by Nottinghamshire or any other local authority.

  Rates Defaulters
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has as to the level of summonses issued for defaulters on(a) domestic and (b) industrial and commercial rates at the latest convenient date to December 1989.

  Mr. Key
  From information collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy we estimate that 1·4 million summonses were issued by rating authorities in England in 1989–90. No information is available on the split between domestic and non-domestic ratepayers.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of people living in bed and breakfast accommodation who were the responsibility of the London borough of Wandsworth on 14 December.
  444
  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities have a statutory duty to secure accommodation for households who have been found to be homeless, or threatened with homelessness, under part III of the Housing Act 1985. Information is reported quarterly to the Department. The latest available figures for the number of homeless households in bed and breakfast accommodation are for the end of September 1990. The reported figures, including those for the London borough of Wandsworth, appear in table 7 of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter 1990. Supplementary Tables". A copy is in the Library.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will issue advice to local housing authorities on the way in which the provisions of part XII of the Housing Act 1985 should be exercised having regard to homelessness outside London;

  (2) if he will make it his policy not to exercise his powers under sections 322 to 326, inclusive, of the Public Health Act 1936 to enforce the provisions of part XII of the Housing Act 1985 where a local authority, in response to applications for short-term night shelter by charities and churches, was choosing not to exercise these powers;

  (3) if he will make it his policy not to exercise his powers under sections 322 to 326, inclusive, of the Public Health Act 1936 to enforce the provisions of part XII of the Housing Act 1985 where a local authority, in response to applications for short-term night shelters by charities and churches, is sensitively choosing not to exercise these powers.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department's advice to local authorities on the use of their powers under part XII of the Housing Act 1985 is contained in DOE circular 12/86. My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to revise that advice or to exercise his powers under sections 322 to 326 of the Public Health Act 1936.

  Humber Estuary
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to designate the Humber estuary a Ramsar site and a special protection site under the European Community directive.

  Mr. Baldry
  I cannot forecast when the Humber estuary will be designated. As is the case with a number of sites currently being considered by Government, officials are seeking to identify apparent problems or conflicts of interest that need to be examined, in the light of the scientific evidence put forward by the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Community Charge (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what future financial help for the year 1991–92 will be given to the London borough of Wandsworth in assisting the authority towards its community charge.

  Mr. Key
  Under our proposed settlement for 1991–92 Wandsworth will receive revenue support grant, payments from the national non-domestic rate pool, inner London education grant and area protection grant totalling nearly £1,200 per adult compared with an inner London average for 1991–92 of £1,392.

  Housing Investment Figures
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he issued the latest housing investment programme figures; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 December 1990 to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) at col. 463–64.

  Housing (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present number of either flats or houses belonging to the London Borough of Wandsworth which were empty on the 14 December.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest available information on empty council dwellings relates to 1 April 1990 and was provided by the London borough of Wandsworth in their April 1990 housing investment programme return (HIP1), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Rental Accommodation
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy towards the building by local authorities of rental accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  It is for local authorities to determine their own priorities for housing capital expenditure within the resources available. However, we have encouraged them to concentrate on the improvement of their own stock and on assistance to private owners with grants. The Government's policy is that housing associations should be the main providers of new subsidised homes for rent, with local authorities fulfilling a mainly enabling role.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the privatisations with which his Department has been involved since 1979, indicating in each case the date of the sale, the proceeds of the sale and the estimated current value of the company.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 14 December 1990]: My Department was involved with the privatisation of the water and sewerage companies in England and Wales. The sale took place in 1989. The estimated net proceeds will be £3,454 million. The estimated current value of the partly paid shares in the companies is £5·7 billion.

  Refuse-derived Fuel
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the Government intend to encourage the development and use of refuse-derived fuel.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  Municipal and industrial refuse are major potential sources of energy and my Department's policy is to encourage the use of waste as a fuel wherever it is economically viable and environmentally acceptable. My Department is undertaking a substantial programme of research and development aimed at overcoming the difficulties associated with the handling, storing and
  446
  burning of refuse-derived fuel (RDF). At present there are 12 current RDF R and D projects with a total contract value of £1·3 million. In addition the non-fossil fuel obligation will help the RDF industry to enter the market for electricity generation; there were two such projects included in the initial tranche of the NFFO.

  Arrangements for the second tranche were announced on 19 December. It will be brought forward in 1991 and it is the Government's intention to include in that tranche a separate band reserved for municipal and general industrial waste incineration projects, which will include refuse-derived fuel.

  Gipsy Site
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what undertakings he gave to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare about informing him of the date and place of the local inquiry into the application by Avon county council for a gipsy caravan site at Box Bush lane, Hewish, Weston-super-Mare; when he notified objectors and others of these facts; when he expects to inform the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare of these facts; and what steps he will take to ensure that ministerial undertakings are adhered to in the future.

  Sir George Young
  On 4 December 1989 my hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, undertook to inform the hon. Member of the date of the inquiry. Objectors and others who made representations were notified on 30 November 1990. It is regretted that my hon. Friend was not notified at the same time. He was notified on 20 December 1990 when details of the inquiry were included in a letter responding to points he raised on 13 November 1990 about the need for an inquiry into the proposals.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what recent assessment he has made of the extent of pesticide and other chemical contamination of groundwater sources as a result of the operation of dilute and disperse landfill sites; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to conduct a survey of all dilute and disperse waste sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department is currently conducting a survey of the effect of landfill sites on groundwater quality in England and Wales. The survey will include the type of site to which the hon. Member refers.

  Sulphur Dioxide
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the Iiasa data on sulphur dioxide emissions provided to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

  Mr. Baldry
  The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) recently published projections of future sulphur dioxide emissions through to the year 2000 as part of their acid rain project. Projections of energy demand and fuel use need to take into account a range of factors which are subject to constant change and are difficult to predict. The IIASA projections have not
  447
  taken into account for example the recent changes of policy in some eastern European countries and the European Community's large combustion plants directive.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer on 18 December,Official Report, column 116, what notice water companies will be required to take of any guidelines produced by the Director of Water Services following the current consultative process and what sanctions are available (a) to him, (b) to the Director of Water Services and (c) to consumers if the guidelines and criteria are disregarded.

  Mr. Baldry
  Water companies have powers to fix charges and make charges schemes under sections 75 and 76 of the Water Act 1989. Although each company has discretion about how it structures its charges, it is required by condition E of its instrument of appointment (licence)"to ensure that no undue preference is shown to, and that there is no undue discrimination against, any class of customers or potential customers".

  It is the responsibility of the Director General of Water Services to ensure that each company complies with the conditions of its licence.

  The Secretaries of State for the Environment and Wales and the director general have duties under section 7(3) to ensure that the interests of all customers are protected. It is the duty of the director general to keep under review matters relating to the carrying out of their functions by water companies. However, the Secretaries of State may give general directions indicating the considerations to which the director general should have regard in determining the order of priority in which matters are to be brought under review.

  Following the consultation, the director general will draw up general guidelines for companies to consider in drawing up their charges and charging schemes. These guidelines are likely to cover both issues on which the director general has legal powers and other, broader issues on which the consultation paper has given customers an opportunity to contribute to a public debate about future policy.

  Should a company fix charges or make charges schemes which appear to the director general to contravene its licence conditions, he can take enforcement action under section 20 of the Act. If he considers that any actions of the company operate against the public interest, he may refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, so that it can consider modifications to the conditions of the company's licence.

  Enforcement of licence conditions is a matter for the director general. However, an individual customer may seek judicial review if he thinks that the director general has failed to take appropriate action. Finally a customer may challenge a company in the courts if he considers a charge levied by the company has not been properly determined by reference to a charges scheme.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Radiation (Compensation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 November,Official Report, column 194, if he will make a statement on his conclusions about a no-fault compensation scheme for service-related personnel who have been exposed to nuclear radiation.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Officials have now largely concluded their studies into this matter. I hope to make a statement in the near future.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessments and simulations there have been of the effect upon the environment of Saddam Hussein's threat to blow up Kuwaiti oil installations in the event of war; and if he will put the results in the Library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has commissioned any research on the ecological effects of a war in the Gulf; and which sources of information already available he has used on this issue.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce decommissioning of HMS Valiant, HMS Courageous, HMS Swiftsure and HMS Sovereign.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend announced on 25 July at column 471 that we intend to maintain a submarine fleet of about 16 boats in the future, of which around three-quarters would be nuclear powered. Following the decisions to decommission Warspite, Churchill and Conqueror, we are considering the further steps needed to achieve the revised force level. Decisions will be announced as they are taken.

  Glen Garry Transmitter
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the full cost of development of the experimental extremely low frequency transmitter to be built at Glen Garry, to date.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not our policy to release details of expenditure on specific research programmes.

  HMS Resolution
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMS Resolution is to undergo a fourth refit.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the electoral registration percentage for service men in each of the last three years in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force; and what is the cost of running the three district electoral register offices for each of the services.
  449
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The electoral registration percentage for service men in each of the last three years is as follows:

  1988 per cent.

  1989 per cent.

  1990 per cent.

  Royal Navy1

  —

  —

  75

  Army

  63·5

  64

  65

  Royal Air Force

  42·0

  48

  53

  1 It is not possible though it is believed to give an accurate that for both years figure for 1988 and 1989, it was around 75 per cent.

  The estimated running costs of the electoral registration offices in 1990–91 are as follows:

  £

  Royal Navy

  15,350

  Army

  29,700

  Royal Air Force

  26,000

  Loch Lochy Listening Post
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has reconsidered his intention to establish an extremely low frequency listening post on Sron A'Choire Ghairbh beside Loch Lochy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 19 February 1990 at column 573.

  Iraq (Weapons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the defence implications for United Kingdom service men of (1) the involvement of scientists and engineers employed by Man Technologie of West Germany in assisting Iraq in developing centrifuges for enriching uranium to military grade;

  (2) the sale by the French-based company Gachot to Iraq of militarily sensitive valves and vacuum pumps;

  (3) uranium sales by Portugal to Iraq;
  450
  (4) the sale to Iraq by Leybold-Meraus of Cologne of valves which can be used in the manufacture of a uranium enrichment centrifuge capable of making weapons grade highly enriched uranium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We continue to assess that Iraq is not currently capable of constructing a nuclear explosive device, notwithstanding recent allegations regarding imports of various materials and items of equipment.

  NATO Operations and Plans
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all NATO operations and plans designed for internal security purposes in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other NATO countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on operational matters of this nature. NATO does not, however, have a role in internal security matters.

  HMS Dreadnought
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to take a final decision in respect of the disposal of HMS Dreadnought.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member of 13 December 1990,Official Report, column 505.

  Northern Ireland
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider providing financial compensation for Ministry of Defence employees working in Northern Ireland similar to that provided for civilians working in a temporary capacity at Ministry of Defence locations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Ministry of Defence civilian staff based temporarily in Northern Ireland receive allowances designed to reimburse the additional costs incurred as a result of living away from their normal place of residence. It would not be appropriate to make similar payments to staff permanently resident in Northern Ireland who do not have similar financial commitments.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Sir John Sainty: Tributes
On consideration of the letter from Sir John Christopher Sainty, KCB, announcing his retirement from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments:
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, on 5th June last year my noble friend Lord Belstead read to the House Sir John Sainty's letter announcing his intention of retiring from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 31st December. My noble friend said then that an opportunity would be afforded to the House to pay tribute to Sir John and to that end I now move to resolve:
"That this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Sir John Christopher Sainty, KCB, from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Sir John Christopher Sainty executed the important duties of his office".
By an odd coincidence the last occasion a Motion on these lines was moved in your Lordships' House was within a few weeks of my noble friend Lord Whitelaw arriving here from another place. He spoke of his,
"inadequacy as a new boy to speak from experience",
of the outstanding qualities of the then retiring Clerk of the Parliaments, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I too feel my inadequacies in speaking about Sir John, but I can truthfully say that, despite having arrived only recently, I have been here quite long enough to learn of the high esteem, respect and indeed affection with which he is regarded on all sides of your Lordships' House.
Sir John first entered the Parliament Office over 30 years ago in 1959. After a very few years, in 1963, he was seconded to be the private secretary to the Leader of the House and Chief Whip. In that capacity he served my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord St. Aldwyn, and after the change of government in 1964, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It must have been a crowded two years in his life; but more significantly, it was a period when he was called upon, while still a comparatively young man, to bear a very considerable amount of responsibility for the smooth running of your Lordships' House in a period of change.
Sir John then returned to the Parliament Office as Clerk of the Journals and held that post until 1970 when he left to work at the Institute of Historical Research. But in 1974, to the great good fortune of the House, he returned here as Reading Clerk and Clerk
974
of the Journals. In 1983 he succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, as Clerk of the Parliaments.
Sir John thus spent over half his career in the Parliament Office as Clerk of the Journals. This, as your Lordships know, is the post most intimately concerned with the precedents and procedures of the House. Rarely indeed has the House of Lords been served by a more distinguished proceduralist than Sir John. Throughout his career he not only undertook research into the precedents and history of your Lordships' House, but he ensured that the fruits of his research were fully written up and preserved. The result is that what was in the past largely an oral tradition of procedural expertise has now become a written one.
This work was not mere antiquarianism on Sir John's part. It has had a very practical benefit. The procedures of your Lordships' House have had to develop over the last 30 years, and particularly over the last 10 or 15 years, to meet the new pressures which have arisen over that time. In the process of evolution the advice of the Clerks has been and will of course continue to be crucial.
Thanks largely to the work of Sir John, that advice has for many years now been based on a most thorough understanding of the history of the House. It has always been for us to take the crucial decisions as to how we wish the House to evolve; but to Sir John goes the credit for our being able to do so in the full knowledge of what our predecessors chose to do in the past. We will continue to build on the sure foundation of his work. It will be a lasting monument.
Sir John's skills as a historical researcher straddle both his professional life in the House and his personal life, for he is a distinguished historian. His particular area of interest is that of office holding within the United Kingdom over the last two or three centuries. Indeed, he has been the memorialist both of his own post as Clerk of the Parliaments and of the whole Parliament Office.
Most of Your Lordships will always think of Sir John as a shy man. But as those of your Lordships who ever sought his advice over a procedural impropriety will testify, Sir John's mild manner concealed a strong sense of the House's traditional values. In defence of tolerance, courtesy and fair play he could display more than a hint of steel. He was not a retiring academic when it came to running his own department. He was a most active proponent of the welfare of his staff and ensured, by a series of reforms over the period of his Clerkship, that the staff of the Parliament Office were properly provided for within the changing conditions of the wider public service. Again, your Lordships will reap the benefits of his work in that area for years to come.
We rely upon our Clerks and we rely upon the Clerk of the Parliaments to ensure that the House can retain staff of as high a calibre as any in Whitehall. Only if that is the case shall we continue to be served as we have been served in the past.

975
I believe that the first social event that I attended in the House as Leader was the party given by Sir John and Lady Sainty to mark his retirement. That, I feel, allows me to wish them, personally as well as on behalf of your Lordships, a very long and happy retirement.
Moved to resolve, That this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Sir John Christopher Sainty, KCB, from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Sir John Christopher Sainty executed the important duties of his office.—(Lord Waddington.)
2.45 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure on behalf of my noble friends to join the noble Lord the Leader of the House in the warm tribute that he has paid to Sir John Sainty. During the time that I have spent in the House, I have come to appreciate more and more the high quality of the service that we receive from the officials of the House. They are invariably helpful and courteous, and their advice is invaluable, especially when it is the advice that we want. There is a sense in which their responsibilities are greater than those of their colleagues in another place because we are not subject to the discipline of Rules of Order to the same extent as the other place, or to the discipline of a Speaker to enforce them. They are expert at guiding us, or most of us, in the right direction.
It is the Clerk of the Parliaments who bears the heaviest burden. I know that the House will agree with me that Sir John Sainty conformed to the highest traditions of his predecessors and brought dignity and honour to his office. His great knowledge of Parliament and government gave him the necessary authority, but he also had humour and an understanding of our needs and our idiosyncrasies. We shall miss Sir John very much, and we wish him and Lady Sainty a long and happy retirement.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I add my support and that of my noble friends to the Motion which has been moved by the Leader of the House the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. Although I have been lucky enough to have a little more experience than he has of sitting, as it were, in the House under Sir John Sainty, I nonetheless feel a tyro compared with, say, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, or the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who, as Leaders of the House, had the benefit of Sir John's services nearly 30 years ago.
We have greatly appreciated Sir John's exceptional quality. He has been one of the most scholarly and wisest of the Clerks of the Parliament. It is appropriate that he retires not through infirmity or old age, having indeed surmounted an illness which caused us all great concern a few years ago, but to devote himself the more completely to the scholarship that he has already advanced to such an extent.
976
We wish Sir John very well in what is not his retirement but his new vocation, which I believe he will discharge with all the distinction he brought to his duties in the House.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, the Cross-Bench Peers too would like to support all the splendid tributes that have been paid to Sir John Sainty. We should like to add our thanks for all the help he has given over the problems peculiar to the Cross Benches, which he always dealt with in his usual courteous and patient way. We wish him a very happy retirement with his family.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, perhaps from these Benches I may add our thanks to Sir John Sainty. In my profession, the sincerity of an utterance is sometimes judged by whether it has been written down in full manuscript. When it has not, it is said to be more sincere. In that case, I am making a very sincere speech at the moment. We who come to the House as Bishops are not wise in the ways of Westminster. We have always received the utmost kindness and courtesy in preparing us for our part in the proceedings of your Lordships' House. With that, I should like to add the Bishops' good wishes to Sir John and Lady Sainty in their retirement.
2.49 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, it fell to Sir John Sainty towards the end of his period of office to do what he could to guide me in the discharge of my Woolsack responsibilities. The extent to which he succeeded in doing so is a striking tribute to his talents. It gives me the greatest pleasure to endorse the remarks that have been made and to join in wishing Sir John and Lady Sainty all the very best for the years that lie ahead.
On Question, Resolution agreed to nemine dissentiente; it was ordered that the Lord Chancellor do communicate this Resolution to the said Sir John Christopher Sainty, KCB.

Clerk of the Parliaments
Then, the then Leader of the House having informed the House on 5th June last that Her Majesty had, by Letters Patent, appointed Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth, Esquire, to the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments, in the place of Sir John Christopher Sainty, KCB, the Letters Patent were read. The said Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth, Esquire, made the prescribed declaration (which declaration is set down in the Roll among the oaths of the great officers) in terms as follows:
"I, Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth, do declare that I will be true and faithful and troth I will bear to our Sovereign Lady the Queen and to Her Heirs and Successors. I will nothing know that shall be prejudicial to Her Highness Her Crown Estate and Dignity Royal, but that I will resist it to my power and with all speed I will advertise Her Grace thereof, or at the least some of Her Counsel in such wise as the same may come to Her knowledge. I will also well and truly serve Her Highness in the Office of Clerk of Her Parliaments making true Entries and Records of the things done and passed in the same. I will keep secret all such matters as shall be treated in Her said Parliaments and not disclose the same

977
before they shall be published, but to such as it ought to be disclosed unto, and generally I will well and truly do and execute all things belonging to me to be done appertaining to the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments."
After which he took his seat at the Table.

Clerk Assistant of the Parliaments
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In accordance with the Statement made by me on 5th June last, I have appointed Mr. John Michael Davies to be Clerk Assistant in place of Mr. Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth, appointed Clerk of the Parliaments. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of John Michael Davies, Esquire, to be Clerk Assistant of the House in place of Michael Addison John Wheeler-Booth, Esquire, appointed Clerk of the Parliaments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In accordance with the Statement made by me on 5th June last, I have appointed Mr. Paul David Grenville Hayter to be Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees in place of Mr. John Michael Davies, appointed Clerk Assistant. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Paul David Grenville Hayter, Esquire, as Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees of the House in place of John Michael Davies, Esquire, appointed Clerk Assistant.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

British Steel and Scotland
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that British Steel has good grounds for deciding neither to sell nor to develop any of its steel mills in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the future of British Steel's assets is a commercial matter for the company, which must be able to take the operational decisions it considers necessary to ensure its continuing competitiveness. We have, however, encouraged British Steel to give full and careful consideration to any case for investment in its Scottish plants and to any offers it may receive for any assets
978
which might become surplus to the company's requirements.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Scotland has one of the most successful blast furnaces in Europe and that its record of production in terms of man-hours for every tonne of steel produced is unique? What is behind the company's decision? Is there any reason to believe that that monopoly has taken no account of social considerations in the area of its works or that it is moving entirely out of that part of these islands?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I fully understand my noble friend's concerns. However, they are commercial decisions best left to the company itself.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, surely for a monopoly in such a position money is not the only consideration. There are also fundamental social considerations, and trade unions and others who are engaged in such work should not be kept in the dark.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government have continually encouraged British Steel to be open with the facts and to bring forward its figures. The Government have not been slow in bringing forward their own initiatives, having commissioned a report from the Scottish Development Agency and set up the Lanarkshire Working Group, which will be chaired by the Scottish Office. The Government do not take their responsibilities in this matter lightly.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that no other mill in that part of Scotland will be closed? If the mill is closed, how will the company provide the steel required by the oil industry which is fundamental to Scotland and which will not be provided from elsewhere?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, whether or not other steel mills or companies owned by British Steel are closed will be for British Steel to decide in the light of economic considerations. It will also depend on the guarantees that British Steel has given in the past concerning the future of those companies. As for the point made by my noble friend about seamless tubes for the North Sea oil industry, I understand that there is considerable over-capacity in that particular product throughout Europe.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is asking almost exactly the same questions as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk; namely, will British Steel be frank and tell us whether it intends to destroy the plant so that a competitor from abroad cannot use it? Is he further aware that just the other day British Steel announced that it would be closing one of the blast furnaces for six months? Neither we nor the unions have any information but the belief is that there is a strong possibility that the Clydesdale tube plant will go out fairly soon and, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, that would result in no British-produced seamless tubing for the North Sea industry. When it is an expansionist base, does he agree that that appears to be quite crazy economics?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I fully concur with the noble Lord regarding the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I do not believe that anybody in this House would disagree with the decision to ask British Steel to be as open as possible with its figures so that we can make a proper assessment of whether the plant should close. British Steel has said that it will co-operate fully with the SDA report. We will welcome that. I have already answered my noble friend Lord Selkirk on the question of seamless tubing to the effect that there is already considerable over-capacity of that particular product throughout Europe.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Ravenscraig—which I understand is what we are talking about—was originally built because of a misunderstanding that a large automobile factory would be built alongside it? That never materialised. Does he agree that Ravenscraig has therefore been a non-starter owing to the transport costs involved in sending steel from Scotland to the South of England?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot confirm the original reasons for building the Ravenscraig steelworks. However, I can confirm that at the moment we are talking about the closure of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig and not the steelworks itself, which will continue and is guaranteed to continue working for some years.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, given that British Steel is now a publicly quoted company responsible to its shareholders, what is the basis upon which ministers feel that they have to defend or oppose its commercial policies in this House?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have maintained that commercial decisions are for the company itself. That does not mean that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Selkirk when he says that quite clearly we have a responsibility to the people of Motherwell. That is why ministers set up the Lanarkshire working group and asked the SDA to come forward with its report on the future of the steel industry in Scotland, which is a legitimate function of responsible government.
Lord Jay: My Lords, will the Minister answer the other question asked by my noble friend? Is it true that British Steel is not merely closing down the plant but is refusing the sell it to any other enterprise which might be willing to operate it? Would that not be restrictive practice?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I understand it, if that is a restrictive practice it is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. Furthermore I understand that no buyer has come forward to purchase the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the reasons why ministers have a responsibility are, first, that a number of assurances were given by ministers and the company on privatisation—assurances which still hold and are underwritten by the Government—and, secondly, that there would be social problems of an enormous
980
magnitude were Ravenscraig to be sucked up? That is a matter for government. Will he tell us what has happened to the assurances about the future of Ravenscraig that were given at privatisation and debated at great length in this House?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, for once I think I can agree with the noble Lord. Yes, the Government have a responsibility, given the enormous importance for employment prospects in the Lanarkshire area and the statements made by past Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and by British Steel itself prior to privatisation—various commitments given shortly before privatisation—that steelmaking facilities at Ravenscraig and the rolling mill at Dalzell will continue in operation at least until the end of 1994. I understand that the commitments made in the past have been fulfilled by the company.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, does the Minister deny the statement by British Steel that on no account would it sell Ravenscraig or any hot strip mill?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not aware of any definite statement by British Steel to the effect that it would not sell anything on any account. As a government we have taken the position in the Scottish Office that we will encourage British Steel to give full and careful consideration to any case for investment made by anybody who wishes to invest in those particular plants.

Olympic Games: Venue in the Year 2000
3.5 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of the possibility of holding the Olympic Games in Great Britain in 2000.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, as with other major sports events, we stand ready to offer whatever promotional support we can. However, it is for the British Olympic Association to decide whether there should be a British bid.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that the British Olympic Committee decided to go for a British bid again for the year 2000 and that the City of Manchester put in an extremely effective and professional bid for 1996? I believe that it would be in the best interests of all those who wish to see the Olympic Games held here that we should support the Manchester bid again. Does she agree with me that it would be in the best interests of the United Kingdom as a whole to have the games in such a place? There is great support for the idea in the whole area. Will she confirm that the whole of the United Kingdom would benefit from the Olympic Games being held in Manchester in the year 2000?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to do so, given that the responsibility for choosing which bid should go forward lies with the Olympic Committee itself. I agree with my noble friend that the bid put up by

981
Manchester was indeed very impressive. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at the time was present in Tokyo when the bid was made. It is quite clear that a great impression was created by Manchester. As for the other factors mentioned by my noble friend, they will feature in any application to be considered as a bid to go forward.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the Minister agree that e correct impression should go out from this House? Is it not a fact that London has also made a very impressive bid which is not only as good as Manchester's but better? Would it not be a good idea for the noble Baroness to rise and say nice things about London for a change?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is for that very reason that I said that it would not be appropriate for this House to have a view about which was the best bid. All bids will go forward and it is for the British Olympic Association to ensure which bid goes forward for the main games.
Lori Barnett: My Lords, I do not wish to see the Minister give any support to either side; nevertheless does she recognise that London is already sufficiently cluttered up and that the Greater Manchester area would be a very suitable area in which to hold the Olympics?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall have to continue my even-handedness in this affair.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, given the enormous prestige and economic potential of staging the Olympic Games, will the Minister assure the House that any bid will have the full support of the Government? Will she also say what kind of resources and technical support the Government will give to the British Olympic Association in presenting the bid?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is entirely appropriate for the Government to give diplomatic promotional support and other practical support. It is worth noting in the case of Manchester that the infrastructure expenditure, which would have been a constituent part of supporting the bid at that time, will by 1996 have reached £500 million.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in addition to the obvious fact that Manchester is a highly superior city to London, does the Minister agree that to have such investment in an area of high unemployment and considerable deprivation, and away from the chaos of London, would be beneficial to the country as a whole?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot agree because it is inappropriate for me to say which part of the country should be successful in its bid for the next Olympic Games. Bids will be eligible for the urban aid programme provided that they meet the criteria. The infrastructure will be a contingent part of any bid made for the games.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important that we should not argue about the relative value of the different cities but that we should work towards holding the games in Britain? That is something which many of us involved in sport
982
and recreation wish to see. We have everything to sell—great athletes and a great country—and the Government should be seen to be supporting the effort.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no difficulty in responding to the noble Baroness. I concur with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister who looks forward to attending the games in the year 2000 and hopes that they will be placed in this country.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, does the Minister agree that staging the Olympic Games implies the building of a wide range of facilities which are badly needed in this country? Does she further agree that Manchester could use those facilities as well as any city in the land?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the facilities that will be provided will certainly be welcome in Manchester.

Private Hospitals: Gulf Emergency
3.12 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why private hospitals are not contributing to the emergency arrangements following the Gulf crisis, and whether private hospitals or beds could be requisitioned in the event of an emergency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, contingency plans for the reception and treatment of casualties in the event of hostilities in the Gulf rely on a combination of military and National Health Service facilities. The national plans do not include the use of private facilities but, where appropriate, it is for health authorities to decide whether to contract out some of their routine work to private hospitals.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that in order to obtain a uniform approach a more central direction to regional health authorities may be necessary if, God forbid, war breaks out and we reach saturation point as regards casualties? Does the Minister further agree that it could be a mistake to leave the matter to the various regional health authorities because there could be two standards of treatment to the detriment of war casualties and the indigenous population on the waiting list?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government have already issued guidance and require regions to produce plans to show that they have prepared contingency arrangements. While the private sector makes a valuable contribution to overall health care it cannot provide the full range or match the scale of services available under the National Health Service. In particular, it cannot provide accident and emergency cover or send out medical teams to major incidents; nor can it offer the full range of specialties available in all health regions. We have taken care to ensure that plans are in place to meet any eventualities, although we hope that they will not occur.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, whatever the merits of the Question, is it not a source

983
of considerable satisfaction that after years of deprecatory and critical remarks about the private sector in medicine made by members of the Labour Benches it should at last be recognised that the sector has something useful to offer?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for reminding us of that. I emphasise that the private sector has indicated that it is ready to help in any way.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although the private sector has rightly said that it shares responsibility with the NHS hospitals, fundamentally it will lie with the NHS hospitals? Has there been any liaison between all hospitals, particularly with regard to their specialties, in order that they can provide the best service in the best manner if required?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. The regional planning that has taken place has taken that matter into account. Emergency arrangements have been set up. An operations room has been set up in the Department of Health and we believe that the various regions are adequately co-ordinated.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, clearly the whole House hopes that the eventuality will not occur. However, as the Minister has said, we must be prepared. Will she give an assurance that the 3,500 beds temporarily closed because of financial constraints will be opened if necessary to deal with the casualties in each of the regions? Secondly, is the Minister satisfied that doctors and nurses have been effectively briefed about the nature and effects of chemical weapons because anxiety has been expressed within the professions?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are confident that the National Health Service has the resources and expertise to treat any casualties who are likely to be evacuated to this country. The Ministry of Defence has made arrangements to ensure that the casualties of chemical warfare will be decontaminated in the battle theatre. The reception of casualties will have an effect on National Health Service arrangements as regards waiting lists and so forth. We shall keep a close eye on those effects and consider whether any action is necessary.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister respond to my question about the beds that have been closed? If they were opened there may be a less serious effect on patients awaiting treatment within the National Health Service.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on the basis of estimates we have made contingency plans for coping with casualties. They may include the opening of wards and beds which have been closed. We are keeping an eye on the situation and shall adapt as necessary.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, has the Ministry of Defence passed to surgeons and consultants within the National Health Service the knowledge and expertise that has been acquired at Porton Down about
984
chemical warfare and wounds? Has that knowledge been passed to the doctors who must deal with the patients admitted to hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is full co-operation between medical personnel employed in both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health. A revised National Health Service medical guide—the so-called blue guide—which relates to Gulf contingency planning and makes available information to all specialist fields is about to be issued.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, did the Minister say that the guide is about to be issued? Has it not yet been issued?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is issued as of now.
Lord Smith: My Lords, I must ask a version of the Question that I asked on 18th December. Have Her Majesty's Government any plans effectively to link independent and NHS medicine? That might solve in part the awkward problem of the in-patient treatment of NHS patients displaced by the admission of casualties in the Gulf.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already said that it is for health authorities to decide whether it is necessary to contract out some of their routine work to private health facilities.

Unemployment
3.19 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to reverse the increase in unemployment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the key contribution of government is to create a climate in which enterprise can flourish. We expect to see this year a reduction in inflation, which is our first priority, and a resumption of economic growth. The wide-ranging services offered by my department are, of course, available to help unemployed people to re-enter the labour market.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Is he aware however that what he has just said is completely the opposite of the view of the CBI, the TUC and prominent bankers and economists in the City? They take the view that by the end of the year there will be 2 million unemployed and that the root cause is the lack of application of the Government's policy, which they feel needs to be changed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place that he is prepared to listen to any representations made to him. However, any serious attempt to reduce inflation must mean using a tight monetary and fiscal policy, which the Government are doing. That will involve costs in terms of a period of slower growth of output and employment and possibly rising unemployment. We should be deluding ourselves if we

985
believed there to be a costless way of controlling inflation. We can minimise the pain if everybody acts sensibly in pay negotiations.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, notwithstanding my noble friend's admirable reply, is it not quite ridiculous to deal with this immense subject by way of a Starred Question?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is my duty to do my best to answer the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the right way to reduce unemployment and get the economy going once again to reduce interest rates and to do so immediately? Is it not also a fact that the Government are now constrained from doing just that by their entry into the ERM?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, membership of the ERM will reinforce the anti-inflationary policy, which will in turn have a favourable effect on the economy, including employment in the long run. However, it makes it even more important that labour costs are kept under control. If firms allow themselves to become uncompetitive by agreeing to large pay rises, they will not be accommodated, as they have been heretofore, in depreciating currency.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that rising unemployment is a product of the general economic situation for which the Government are responsible and that protective regulations in the employment field have very little to do with that unemployment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor admitted that there will be a slowdown in the economy. As I said, one of the effects may be an increase in unemployment in the short term. I do not believe that what has been done in the employment Acts has the same effect.
Lord Dormand of Essington: My Lords, if it is the function of government, as the Minister said, to provide the right climate in which enterprise can flourish, why have the Government failed to achieve that after 12 years in power?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The Government have done extremely well in providing such a climate. I admit that at present inflation is damaging the economy and must be squeezed out.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind that the latest figures show a substantial increase in unemployment in Huntingdon, does the Minister believe that the new Prime Minister's policies are successful?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not aware of the unemployment figures in Huntingdon in particular, All I can say is that we are looking forward to an increase in economic activity during the current year end therefore an increase in the level of employment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount really looking for increased economic activity in the current year or does he expect growth to be resumed next year?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Autumn Statement forecasts suggested that the latter half of 1990 would be tough. However, output is expected to begin to grow again throughout 1991 and the prospects for the labour market will improve.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, if the recession deepens and unemployment increases, will the Government be prepared to give further consideration to the effect that their decision, announced in the Autumn Statement, to reduce expenditure on training may have on the economy in both the short and long term?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, employment training is not always the necessary requirement to help the long-term unemployed. Many unemployed have skills, some of them basic and some greater than that. But they have lost their motivation to return to the employment market. For that we need a balanced programme. That is why over 100,000 places at job clubs have been provided for the future.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does not the round of supplementary questions arising from the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, admirably illustrate the wisdom of the observation of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that these matters are of such importance that they are more suitable for general debate than Starred Questions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, I must agree with my noble and learned friend. However, it is my task to answer as best I can the questions put to me.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that if the Government tabled a Motion for debate on this matter, we should be only too pleased to debate it?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we should welcome a debate? However, are the Government and the party opposite saying that they begrudge the unemployed a Starred Question in this Chamber? Are they not aware also that the CBI, the TUC and prominent bankers and economists in the City would welcome the opportunity to be brought together under the auspices of the Government to see what contribution they could make towards avoidance of the recession for which we are heading?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am rather disappointed by the attitude taken by the noble Lord. On this occasion and on previous occasions I have tried to demonstrate that the Government take very seriously the plight of the unemployed and that they are actively working to try to reduce their number.

Business of the House: Debates, 23rd January
3.27 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Williams of Elvel and the Baroness Turner of Camden set down for 23rd January shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order

987
35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate. —(Lord Waddington)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 69, Mr. Brendan Patrick Keith be appointed an Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills in place of Mr. Michael Graham Pownall.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Development Board for Rural Wales Bill
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Reductions in the amounts recoverable by employers who have paid statutory sick pay]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert:
("(1) In its application to any employer other than an employer during a tax year in which that employer employed on average in the (determined on a weekly basis) not more than five persons, section 9 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 (recovery by employer of amount paid by way of statutory sick pay) shall have effect as modified by the following provisions of their Act.").
The noble Lord said: I begin with an apology. I was not able to take part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill. A commitment outside the House precluded my attendance on that occasion; I therefore join the debate for the first time.
It would be for the convenience of the Committee if, in discussing Amendment No. 1, we were to discuss also Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6. I believe that it has been agreed through the usual channels that those amendments should be discussed with Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux. My justification, if justification is needed, for moving the amendment is that I was the Secretary of State for Social Services, as the office holder was then known, who first announced proposals for statutory sick pay in a Green Paper which I published in April 1980 entitled Income During Initial Sickness—A New Strategy. That strategy contained two elements. One was the transfer to employers of the administration of statutory sick pay for short spells of sickness by employees; the other was the process which became known as self-certification; that is to say, to get rid of the immensely bureaucratic hassle of requiring GPs to certify short spells of sickness in order that people could present the certificates to the local social security office to obtain their sick pay. My recollection is that on the latter point I had substantial arguments, as did other Secretaries of State, with the British Medical Association. However, in the end the change was accepted.
I believe that both strands of the strategy worked extremely well. Both self-certification and the statutory sick pay scheme threw up remarkably few problems and produced significant savings in central bureaucracy. At that time the main argument on statutory sick pay surrounded the method of compensating employers. It is hardly surprising that when the Act comes to be amended by the Bill before us the same arguments have arisen.
Perhaps I could remind the Committee of my original proposal —that employers should pay the statutory sick pay and be compensated by a 0.5 percentage point reduction in the national insurance contribution. I still maintain that that was a remarkably sensible and simple proposal. However, I fear that it did not find favour with the generality of employers, and especially with the organisations representing smaller firms. There was considerable argument, to which I must say the Government listened.
We therefore published a second consultative document in June 1981 in which we set out two options. One was that the employers should recover half their statutory sick pay payments by deducting the amounts due under the NIC; they would also receive one third of a percentage point reduction in their NIC. The second option was that there should be a 0.5 per cent. reduction for all employers, with a further 0.4 per cent. reduction for smaller employers and employers in industries with high levels of sickness. At the time there were many arguments with the National Coal Board, as it then was, and one or two other industries which tended to experience high levels of sickness.
Employers were still unhappy. I can say to the Committee that by the time I left that department my mind was moving towards the proposition that, if we

989
were to obtain the bureaucratic saving which we assuredly needed if we were to meet our manpower targets, we would have to offer employers more. It fell to my successor, now Sir Norman Fowler, to announce the 100 per cent. reimbursement for statutory sick pay. That was announced at the Conservative Party Conference in October 1981, about two weeks after I moved to the Department of Industry.
I hope the Committee will forgive me for rehearsing this matter at modest length. I do so for two very distinct reasons. First, I have always had a keen appreciation of the impact of changes of this kind upon the very smallest firms—those with up to five employees. Secondly, I am by no means opposed to compensation for statutory sick pay at less than 100 per cent. provided it is matched by appropriate reductions in the levels of national insurance contribution.
I notice that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was quick to enlist me in his army. But I wish to make clear at this stage that I am not prepared to serve in that army. I believe that the Government have almost got it right. It is right. Given the substantial increase in the number of employers who now operate statutory sick pay schemes, when savings must be found to finance improvements in the welfare state for which there is no other source than central government funds, it is not unreasonable that a modest share of the cost of paying the statutory sick pay should be transferred to employers, provided that that is matched by appropriate reductions in national insurance contributions.
I shall listen carefully to the amendments to be moved by, among others, my noble friend Lord Mottistone. However, as he may be aware, I am not convinced that his amendment is justified. I feel and have always felt that there must be some way of avoiding potential serious hardship for the smallest employers. I know that these are sympathies which engage the attention of the Chamber from time to time. I refer to the small family business, the corner shop, the rural grocer who may be struggling to survive and may employ only one or two people or the tiny start-up operation which has only two or three employees. I am persuaded that as they stand the proposals may cause considerable hardship in those cases if their employees had anything significantly more than the average sickness record.
I suggested a cut-off point of employers with five or fewer employees. I am fully prepared to concede that that may not necessarily be the right test. I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is suggesting 20 employees. That takes one into a totally different field where averages may have some relevance. For the very small employer the answer and the effect of my amendment would be to take them out of the Bill altogether. That would mean that they would continue to obtain the 100 per cent. reimbursement provided by existing legislation. Although it is not for this Bill but for other legislation, I envisage that they would not then obtain the reduction in national insurance contributions—
990
0·5 per cent. for the standard rate and the 0·4 per cent. for the lower rates of NIC—which would go to all other employers.
I fully concede that my amendment may not be appropriately drafted and may not even contain the correct tests. However, I maintain that for those small firms the law should remain as it is. They should not be subject to the 80 per cent. reimbursement and would not therefore obtain the reduced NIC.
I advance that argument for two main reasons. It has always seemed to be perfectly reasonable to deploy arguments based on average sickness experience when one is dealing with an employer who may have employees numbered in tens, hundreds or even thousands. Then "average" experience of sickness is relevant. It would be extremely exceptional if there were significant departures from the average experience. However, when one is dealing with employers with up to five employees, averages cease to be relevant and could be misleading.
I read the speech of my noble friend and the whole of the Second Reading debate with a great deal of care. In that debate my noble friend gave examples to establish that the higher rate of deduction which he is proposing for the lower rate of national insurance contribution would in some circumstances benefit smaller employers if they had no more than the average, or even if they went above the average, sickness experience.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me because I propose to base an argument on several lines from what my noble friend said on 11th December. They are these:
"If we take an employer with five employees all earning £170 per week, and one employee had three weeks' sickness during the year—which matches the average incidence of sickness —the extra cost in SSP would be £82.41 assuming the employer makes good the difference between the higher and lower rate of SSP with occupational sick pay".
Pausing there for a moment, I must point out that that is a separate argument, and particularly that of the CBI, which is based on the proposition that it would follow that policy. For the purpose of his argument my noble friend has suggested that course although it is not inevitable. He continues:
"But the annual saving to the employer on his national insurance contribution liability as a whole would be £176.80, putting him £94.39 in profit. Even if the same employer had a further employee, also sick for three weeks, he would still make a saving of £11.98".—[Official Report, 11/12/90; col. 392.]
My noble friend went on to discuss the employer with 20 employees. I am sure that he is right that if you have the average or a little above it in the incidence of sickness, under the Government's proposals an employer may end up significantly better off. Conversely, if the employees have a sickness record significantly worse than the average, the opposite may be the case. That is the purpose of my amendment. I single out the words which my noble friend used which were:
"which matches the average incidence of sickness".
But what if it does not? People go sick as individuals and not as percentages or fractions.
When one is dealing with tiny firms which employ two or three people, it needs only one person in addition to go sick in, say, a 'flu epidemic or something like that for my noble friend's figures to become largely meaningless. Let us suppose that instead of two employees each being off for three weeks, the employer has two off for six weeks—and a bad dose of 'flu is likely to keep one away for six weeks—it may be said in relation to the average statistics that that would be highly exceptional. In those circumstances the employer would be substantially out-of-pocket. He would then have four times £82.41, which according to my calculator is £329.64. The annual saving on his reduction in national insurance contribution remains at £176.80. In those circumstances he is out-of-pocket by over £150. A very large or even a medium-sized employer is exceedingly unlikely to have a 200 per cent. increase in the incidence of sickness. However, that does not apply to the very small employer. In those circumstances a very tiny employer could be put at a substantial disadvantage.
Logically, the right answer would be to say that he should be compensated for the excess. Let us assume that the reduction in the national insurance contribution is matched by the average sickness incidence. If it can be proved that the employer has had substantially over that, then he can be reimbursed the balance. With my advisers I have tried to devise such an amendment but it was impossible to do so. It was impossible in terms of drafting to make reasonable sense of it. It would also be a totally impossible administrative task for the very smallest employers. I think that my amendment provides the right answer; namely, that we should exclude them altogether.
That brings me to my second argument, to which I attach some importance. For the hundreds of thousands of the very smallest firms my amendment would avoid any administrative change at all. I wish to draw a parallel from another change that was made a year or two back in the same field of statutory sick pay and compensation. The argument had been advanced by the employers, and no doubt also by the larger ones, that the payment of national insurance contribution on the statutory sick pay was something which should be reimbursed to employers. By transferring the payment to the employers they became liable for the NIC on that payment. Three or four years ago the Government agreed to that and an additional 7 per cent. was added to the sum which the employer might deduct from his NIC on that account.
It has been widely argued among the organisations for the very small businesses that valuable though that concession may have been, large numbers of them never actually came to grips with the matter. They never claimed the deduction to which they were entitled. I discussed this matter with my noble friend and his right honourable friend. I am immensely grateful to both of them for the time which they gave to the discussion of this whole issue. I said that if they were seeking to help small businesses additional administrative complications cannot be added. I
992
asked what was the extent of the failure to claim this additional 7 per cent. contribution. My noble friend wrote me a letter in which he set out in great detail the admirable measures which the Government have taken to bring the provision to the attention of every employer. They are very substantial. He went on to say:
"Despite these efforts, employers' returns suggest that 20–25 per cent. of this additional compensation may be going unclaimed".
I am prepared to bet that if the employees are below the lower limit and do not pay a national insurance contribution, some part of the reason may be due to that. A very substantial part of the reason is due to the fact that it is too much hassle for the corner shopkeeper or the little village shop or the start-up business to collect this money.
My second reason is that there is advantage in not having additional hassle and administration at this stage. I am told that any change of this kind is likely to take up to three to four years before it is absorbed by the tens of thousands of the very smallest firms. I have been in government and in my experience the small employers do not actually read the carefully drafted documents which they are sent and they do not read the advertisements in the newspapers. They are much too busy running their businesses. Can we not simply leave them out of this Bill and let them stay as they are? That would avoid any administrative change. One could define who they are and they could be taken out. For the rest, the argument which I adverted to at an earlier stage of my speech will stand. No doubt we shall be debating these matters in connection with other amendments in due course.
There is a third reason which may appeal to my noble friend. It is more speculative. On the Government's figures the balance of additional cost—
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: It is very difficult for us to hear what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My noble friend is lucky.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: We are concentrating but it is difficult. I do not know whether the noble Lord is not speaking into one of the microphones, but we can hardly hear what he is saying. But please do not start again.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: This is the first time that that has ever been said about me. Perhaps the noble Baroness might have words with those who are responsible for the amplification. I normally speak a little further back, but when I started those seats were full. I am coming to an end and no doubt the noble Baroness will be relieved to know that.
On the Government's figures the balance of the saving to public expenditure, less the offset of national insurance contributions, is minus £6 million. I recognise that in the total figures that is probably within a margin of error. The real figures show that the Government lose £6 million more in national insurance contribution than they gain in the switch

993
from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. reimbursement. However, as my noble friend made clear, some employers lose but some undoubtedly gain. He quoted examples of some who gain.
If this amendment is accepted it will save the smallest employers any administrative hassle and give them the full cost of any statutory sick pay. I have been advised that it will save the Government something of the order of £60 million. I put that figure forward with a very large question mark next to it. Some employers will benefit more from a reduction in NIC than they would pay out in SSP. More employers will benefit than will lose from what is in the Bill but employers who lose might lose very substantially indeed.
The amendment not only provides 100 per cent. reimbursement and thereby avoids hassle, but it may also save the Government some money. Few amendments moved in this Chamber or in another place have that effect. I hope that such considerations may help my noble friend to make some favourable noises about exempting on some test or other the smallest employers from the change announced by my right honourable friend in the statement last year on social security uprating. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I understand that the amendment in my name and in the name of my noble kinsman Lord Russell is to be discussed with this amendment. My noble kinsman has asked me to open the discussion on our amendment. It is similar in principle to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. However, our amendment puts the number at 20 while my noble friend's amendment puts it at five.
Why do we suggest to the Committee and in particular to my noble kinsman Lord Henley—I sympathise greatly with him in his task of having to defend the Bill—that our amendment should be supported? First, small businesses are under enormous financial pressure. The present ruinous interest rates affect privately funded businesses far more than those which have shareholders. Farming in particular is virtually bankrupt. If Members of the Committee do not believe me, I can tell them that in 1989 total farm income was less than that received by the five major Food supermarkets. We cannot therefore afford a single extra penny.
Secondly, as was stated at Second Reading, the Bill is a breach of faith in regard to what was agreed in 1982. In addition, the cost is actually 27 per cent. and not 20 per cent. because 7 per cent. is already being carried by the employer as an administrative cost. Thirdly, for most small businesses, particularly farmers, the extra cost cannot be passed on. That point always missed by the Government and indeed by the Ministry of Agriculture. We cannot pass on our costs.
Fourthly, it will encourage small employers, who employ two out of five handicapped people, to think twice about employing handicapped people. Fifthly, despite the figures given by my honourable friend Mr. Scott in another place (at col. 898 of the Official Report on 28th November), figures reinforced in this
994
Chamber by my noble kinsman on the Front Bench (at col. 415 of the Official Report of 11th December), the small employer who usually employs those on lower salaries will not be better off than the larger one. My noble friend Lord Jenkin put it differently from the way I shall put it. I shall cut some corners. I shall no doubt be carved apart but it will save time.
For instance, I accept that, for an employee earning £50 a week, the employer's contribution will be reduced by a massive 0.4 per cent. as opposed to 0.05 per cent. if the employee is earning £200 a week. However, this generous rebate will reduce the employer's contribution in the first case by 60p a week as opposed to 10p a week in the second case. The actual cost to the employer could be £26.50 a week. Only a stupid bankrupt farmer would accept a deal such as that.
Sixthly, although I accept that a firm which employs three persons but has one sick—this point was made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin in a slightly different way—is in theory no worse off than the firm which employs 90 persons but has 30 sick, the latter situation seldom if ever occurs. The first situation—where one man in three is off sick—does. Moreover, due to the loyalty of employees to the small firm, they seldom take odd days off; and when they are away they are often seriously ill. It is there that these proposals will hit both the employee and the employer. The employer may have to find an extra £26.50 a week and may have to employ contract labour to make up for the loss of a third of his staff.
Finally, we have chosen the exemption number as 20 because there is a precedent for it. It is an exemption in the Employment Act 1989. I hope that my noble kinsman Lord Henley will be able to respond helpfully. I know that he is more than aware of the enormous concern on this point. He has been most helpful to me since the Bill made its unfortunate appearance in this Chamber just before Christmas. I am grateful on this occasion to the Government for giving us enough time to consider its effects. It is certainly no fault of my noble kinsman that it was rushed through another place during a period of considerable political activity. I hope that he will be able to give us some joy on these amendments.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley for introducing the amendment for us. I asked him to do so because, as I have been teaching, I was not certain that I would be able to be here in time. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for helping to ensure that I had plenty of time to be in my place.
I hope we can agree on the vital importance of small businesses to the national economy. Seventy-five per cent. of firms have a turnover of less than £100,000. Firms with fewer than 20 employees provide 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom's turnover and employ 33 per cent. of the workforce. Those are not negligible figures. There is perhaps force in the case that small businesses are sometimes more capable of innovation and are therefore more capable than larger ones of responding to changes in the market. A big firm, like a big boat, tends to have a rather large turning circle.

995
I hope that that can be taken as common ground on both sides of the Committee. I hope it can also be agreed that small businesses are risky. Thirty-three per cent. of new businesses fail in their first three years. It is our complaint that the effect of the Bill must tend to be to increase the risk.
I know that the Government believe on ideological grounds in the great virtue of risk taking. I have been tempted, I admit only very late at night, to wonder whether they thought that because risk is such a good thing it therefore needed to be increased. That would be a policy worthy of Ian Fleming's Dr. No. I have no doubt that my noble kinsman will deny that that is the Government's outlook, and I shall be quite ready to accept such a denial; but I should be grateful if he would state his agreement with the Liberal Democrats that the risk of running small businesses is great enough already and does not need to be increased any further. The effect of the Bill must be to increase risk. Instead of having a system of insurance cover which spreads the risk, it moves towards a lottery system in which the costs on each firm are in proportion to the amount of sickness in that firm.
When this amendment was first moved by my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood in another place, the Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Scott made three objections to it, of which I believe two to be false and one to be superable. As regards the first of these which I believe to be false, he said:
"Assuming the normal incidence of sickness in many small firms, any extra SSP costs will be offset by reductions in the employer's national insurance contributions".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/90; col. 898.]
I am aware that they will be partially offset, but the words I shall put forward against those of the right honourable gentleman are the words of the Secretary of State contained in the up-rating statement of 24th October. He claimed that the national insurance reductions would go a long way towards helping employers to meet the extra costs. The Secretary of State admitted that the offsetting is not complete. Moreover, my noble kinsman admitted that in his reply to the Second Reading of the Bill. That claim is in line with costings which employers have been carrying out, and I accept it. Therefore, it will not meet all the costs.
The second objection, naturally enough, referred to an administrative difficulty; namely, that many small businesses have a fluctuating workforce. Clearly that is a difficulty, but it is a superable one. The National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Businesses argues that it is perfectly possible to take a monthly average at the end of each month which would be arrived at from the national insurance records. That is the same exercise as all our banks undertake when, for good or ill, they calculate our average daily balance over a period of a month. It is by no means impossible. However, if my noble kinsman the Minister seeks to argue that there is more practicality in considering an amendment restricting the effect on small businesses by turnover rather than
996
by the number of employees, I would be prepared to discuss the matter with him provided that the limits on turnover were fixed sufficiently generously.
The third objection made by the Minister was that if this amendment were accepted it would cost £45 million. That is simply not the case. I say that because the Minister has made an assumption of the average incidence of sickness and five, or indeed 20, people are not a statistically significant sample. Where one has a sample which is not statistically significant the incidents will not be average; in fact, the figure may sometimes vary quite widely. Many firms may gain very little from this, but others may lose a great deal.
The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, deals with five people. A firm which employs five people may genuinely have all its employees hurt in one car crash. They may all be off work for the maximum period of 28 weeks. That could mean bankruptcy. For such a firm, one employee is 20 per cent. of the workforce while in a firm employing 20 employees, two of them represent 10 per cent. of the workforce. As some illnesses are contagious, it means that the random variation will carry with it its own built-in multiplier effect. In a firm employing 20 people, it is possible to have 25 per cent. of the workforce off work suffering from 'flu at any one time. Such an occurrence would make a very severe difference to the firm's chances of survival.
On Second Reading on 11th December at col. 416 my noble kinsman the Minister said that the amount involved is small and that it would not influence employment decisions. I trust that he will forgive me for saying that he has made the classic mistake of looking at turnover when he should have been looking at margins. Turnover may be very big when margins are in fact very narrow. I need only invoke the name of Mr. Micawber to make my point.
If such incidents of sickness push firms over the edge and into bankruptcy it will create unemployment. That is why I believe that the Minister was wrong to claim that the Bill will save £45 million on small businesses. He has altogether failed to calculate the cost of unemployment generated by the Bill to the Treasury. Of course, it is difficult to calculate the cost of unemployment to the Treasury. It is clearly more than simply the amount of benefit paid. One should take into account the cost of administration, the cost to the redundancy fund, the loss of tax revenue, the loss of national insurance revenue and the loss of VAT.
The unemployment unit has carried out costings on such a basis and has arrived at a figure which indicates that the cost of unemployment to the Treasury in a year is £8,296 for each person. However, I shall not insist upon that figure. If my noble kinsman would care to supply a better one, I should be very happy to consider it. I have brought with me my calculator and am willing to review the figure.
However, if the figure quoted is relevant, it is only necessary for 5,245 people to become unemployed as a result of the Bill's provisions for the whole of the alleged saving claimed by the Government to be wiped

997
out. If that should happen, then the one and only benefit that the Government can see arising from the Bill would also be wiped out. In fact, we would have to go through all the anxieties and all the hardships generated by the Bill for nothing.
The arguments for five or 20 people are the same in principle. In my view the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is offering me a quarter of a loaf. Of course, that is better than having no bread. However, I believe that he could have stretched the point and gone so far as the proverbial half a loaf. I imagine that the Government intend to accept his amendment. Indeed, I cannot imagine any government led by politicians doing otherwise. But if by chance the noble Lord finds it necessary to press his amendment, the Liberal Democrats will support it. We shall do so without prejudice to, and reserving our position on, Amendments Nos. 4 and 6. We shall consider further what action to take on those amendments when we have heard the Minister's reply.
4 p.m.
Lord Carter: We have agreed to group Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 together in order to make the debate on the subject more effective. I must say that when I saw the amendment which had been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, I greeted it with modified rapture. In our view it does not go far enough. Indeed, there is much more support outside of this Chamber for Amendment No. 6. So far as we know, his amendment would affect about half of the firms in the country. Nevertheless, it is a start in the right direction.
The noble Lord said that he accepted the principle of matching; that is, compensation for the payment of statutory sick pay being matched by reductions in national insurance contributions. We shall certainly look for his support later today, or at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings, when we try to amend the legislation to ensure that such matching takes place.
As regards Amendment No. 6, this would exempt all employers with fewer than 20 employees and would affect about 80 per cent. of firms. We do not believe that it is impossible to calculate the average number of people employed. The detailed implementation would obviously be a matter for regulation. It is estimated that the cost to the Exchequer would be in the order of £45 million. That means that if the amendment is rejected the cost to small businesses employing fewer than 20 people would be about £45 million. As we have heard, it is especially important to protect small businesses which are now struggling hard to deal with recession.
The point has already been made that 40 per cent. of disabled people are employed in firms with fewer than 20 employees. Those people are less likely to be able to retain their jobs if they are off sick because of their disability. Larger firms can deal with the problems of the disabled person who is off sick. But it is very hard indeed for a small firm. We should be doing nothing to make it harder for the disabled to hold down jobs.
998
The Minister may raise the issue of complexity. There are a number of factors such as the number of employees, the size of the business and the level of turnover. The proposal in Amendment No. 6 is no more complex than others already in force. Decisions could be taken on the amount of turnover, payroll, or whatever. If the Government have a will we can certainly help to find a way.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and dealt with by the Minister at Second Reading, that somehow the legislation must be put into force so that money saved can be used for other benefits, cannot be correct. The Bill is broadly neutral in its effect on public expenditure. The cost of rebates is in the order of £250 million. The cost of reductions in national health contributions will also be in the order of £250 million. Therefore the Bill will have no effect at all in that respect. Money for other benefits this year has come from the £100 million saved by the changes in rates of statutory sick pay, and the thresholds, which are completely outside the Bill. We shall be debating those when we come to the regulations. However, it is a mistake to argue that the Bill is needed this year to provide money for other benefits. If the Government intend to rely on the argument that the Bill is needed to provide such funds, it can only be for the future. That must mean that the Government have it firmly in mind to reduce the rebate percentage in future without a corresponding reduction in employers' national insurance contribution. Therefore I hope the Minister will not attempt to make that point when he comes to argue against the amendments.
Some concession by the Government on the lines of Amendment No. 1 and also of Amendment No. 6 would be a start. We certainly wish to see the effect of any such concession. As I have said, we strongly believe that the exemption limit should be made at the level of 20 employees rather than five but we are prepared to give the Government the opportunity to come back at Report stage, having reviewed the position, and take up an approach which is based not on numbers but upon other factors as well. If any concession which is made does not go far enough then we shall either wish to divide the Committee on Amendment No. 6 or put down an amendment at Report stage which would help to reduce the worst effects of the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what attitude the Government propose to adopt towards Amendment No. 1, which your Lordships are actually discussing at the moment, but I suspect, if only out of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, they will be recommending your Lordships to accept it. Apart from my noble friend the Minister, during the discussions that have taken place so far, including Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding is the only speaker to have had a kind word to say about the Bill. I should be surprised if the Government are not so overcome with gratitude to him that they will not accept his comparatively small amendment.
A very important principle is involved here. The Bill will obviously hurt the small employer: there is no

999
dispute whatever about that. But to say that you must exempt the really small employer from what otherwise you are proposing for everybody else does involve an admission that the measure will do some harm to employers generally. If ever there was a moment when it was singularly unwise to impose any additional handicap on employers, it is surely now. Whether we are in a state of recession is a matter of debate among economists. I would not enter into that. However, we are in a period when industry is facing difficulties and when the Government are rightly telling industry that it must keep its costs down. To come forward at this time with a measure which will increase the costs of industry overall by exacting £100 million from it is surely singularly unwise. An increase of that order may have been all right a few years ago in a time of boom. It may well be all right some years hence if the Government's measures are successful, as I believe they will be, in restoring the economy. At this moment it is a singularly unwise thing to do for the sake of what, in the general run of government expenditure, is a trifling amount but not so trifling to many of the industries concerned.
That is no doubt why, as the Committee will be aware, all those who speak for industry, with a surprising degree of unanimity, are critical. The CBI which normally, as Members opposite will agree, tends to favour the Government, is bitterly critical and so generally are the other organisations of employers and industrialists. They feel it is wrong at this moment to be making an increase in the costs of employers. The fact that the one defender of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, sees it necessary to save the very small employers from what is proposed indicates a general acceptance of that view.
I am very disappointed that after the discussion on Second Reading the Government did not give further thought, as many noble Lords suggested, to whether it was wise in these circumstances to go through with the measure as a whole. Ill feeling has been aggravated by the lack of consultation. In winding up on Second Reading, my noble friend, at col. 415 of the Official Report of 11th December, admitted that the measure had been introduced without consultation. I read his words:
"By the very nature of the way in which the process of public expenditure rounds operate—my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will know this better than I—it was not possible to engage in prior consultations. However, we ensured that employers and their organisations were kept fully in the picture after the first announcement was made."
It is perfectly clear that had the Government consulted industry or the CBI they would have dropped the measure. They come forward with it simply as a result of a deal done on the expenditure round. I make no criticism of their making deals on the expenditure round. But if you are imposing a burden on people without—because you do it through the expenditure round—consulting them in advance, the matter is infinitely more serious. Therefore I beg my noble friend, even at this stage, to hesitate before going forward with the Bill. It cannot be helpful to our economy in its present state. It cannot do other than
1000
create ill will towards the Government in circles where the closest co-operation with the Government is needed.
I hope that the comparatively small amendment of my noble friend Lord Jenkin will be accepted; indeed, I have no doubt that it will be. But apart from giving way on the principle and acceptance of the fact that an extra burden is falling upon industry, the amendment is not really going to cure the mischief of the Bill. That is why I suggest to the Committee that we accept this amendment and other amendments too.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding appeared to accept that view because in a general passage in his speech he said that it was all right to increase the obligation of employers by way of sick pay provided that a reduction in national insurance contribution matched the increased obligation; but it does not match it, by £100 million.
Baroness Phillips: I support my noble friend on Amendment No. 6 but also join the noble Lord who has just spoken in saying that we are happy with any of the amendments. He also touched on a rather important point of principle which perhaps has been overlooked. I recall a famous debate a long time ago about whether there should be payment for items such as prescriptions that were taken out of the National Health Service; that is, a prescription charge. It was said that the charge would be only a shilling, but once a charge or a reduction has been made a principle has been established. This time the Government are talking about a reduction from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. Next time they will probably change it again. In other words, they will have introduced a principle.
I am particularly concerned about small retailers. They are a very important factor in this country. In common with many other noble Lords I am astonished at how the Government keep annoying their friends. One gets the feeling that they do not want to remain in government. Perhaps they want another party to come in and put right some of the mess they have made and to return later; but now they are certainly intent on offending their friends. Small retail employers are almost invariably Conservative voters.
Incidentally, listening to the noble kinsmen following one another, I thought we were in the small business industry. I take it they are all related, rather like owners of corner shops. Seriously, if retail employers have to pay more, which they will have to do however small they are unless we can change matters, they will not bear that cost because they cannot. They will pass it on to you and me in the form of higher prices. In the end it is never governments who actually bear the cost of anything; it is the customer, the passenger, we the people who bear the cost. That is totally unfair and impractical and it will not work.
I am quite sure that the Minister, who is not a kinsman I am sorry to say, will see the sheer common sense of the amendments put before him.
Lord Walston: I cannot resist the temptation—it comes so rarely—of expressing my wholehearted

1001
agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said and his method of expressing it. I agree also with the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken. There is extraordinary unanimity in this matter.
Nothing of significance can be added by me to the arguments, which seemed to be incontrovertible, put forward particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. However, I remind the Committee of the devastating or harmful effect that these proposals will have, if passed as they stand, on all small businesses. We know that they are suffering even greater hardship than many other businesses, especially in rural areas where small businesses are of particular significance. It is a matter which will affect not merely the farmer—and I do not like special pleading on my part for that very important industry—but all other industries which operate in rural areas, whether they be garages, workshops, small manufacturing shops, factories, or anything of that kind. This extra small drop, but one which tips the balance, is liable to have a devastating effect not only on small industries in general but on rural activities and the life of the countryside in particular.
I therefore express my complete support for all the amendments that we have embraced in this rather wide-ranging discussion. I urge the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has already done far more eloquently, to withdraw all the proposals and to think again very seriously about their implications.
Lord Birkett: It is clear from speeches in every part of this Chamber that it is small businesses with which we are concerned. We always get into trouble when trying to draw up definitions, and in this case that means the numbers, whether five persons or 20.
One argument which does not yet appear to have been raised is the number of firms which have what might be called private insurance schemes to protect them from the effect of sickness. Certainly the number of firms that have such private schemes was an argument advanced by the Government in proposing the Bill in the first place. If that is one of the arguments I should have thought it would be clear that very few firms employing five persons or under will have such a scheme. Indeed, I should be very surprised if many firms employing 20 or under have such a scheme. In deciding between the two, I wonder whether the number of five is intended to define small businesses as very small businesses. I should have thought that 20 was a more rational figure for the definition of small businesses. In fact, I should be very surprised if it were not a better figure than five.
I am sure noble Lords will be happy to start at five, but in spite of the precision with which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, marshalled his arguments I consider 20 to be a better figure. I hope that your Lordships, in starting at five, will have the courage to go on to 20, and preferably beyond.
Lord Henley: I have listened most carefully to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and I intend to concentrate very much on the amendments
1002
in hand which, as has been said, relate to the problems that might face small businesses. I do not intend to repeat the arguments put forward at Second Reading on the general merits of the Bill. As the Committee will accept, the Bill has been given a Second Reading.
I touch first on the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this is the wrong time to make these changes despite the reduction proposed in national insurance contributions. That criticism has been made particularly in relation to provisions contained in the Bill. It is argued that the present economic climate is such—a point which my noble friend made very forcefully—that it is wrong to introduce a measure which adds to employers' costs, however little those costs may be. However, that is to forget the very real growth there has been over the years in occupational sick pay coverage. I am now talking about the generality and it is a factor which is much welcomed by all. There is never a perfect time to make any changes but I can assure the Committee that the provisions in this Bill, in the light of the proposed reduced national insurance contributions, are not as significant as feared.
I have listened most carefully to my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who speaks with a wealth of experience in this area. He was the Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was, at the time when the statutory sick pay scheme was being developed and was personally involved in the discussions which took place with employers and their organisations at that time. Naturally, the Government take very seriously what my noble friend said and we are most grateful that he came to see my right honourable friend and myself before Christmas to outline his anxieties about the Bill.
However, as I am sure my noble friend accepts, the Government are not unsympathetic to the fears that have been expressed by and on behalf of small employers about the provisions in the Bill. As I told the House during Second Reading, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have met representatives of the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses. I had a further meeting with them only a few days ago which was most useful. We have also received letters from numerous organisations representing the small business interest as well as from some individual employers.
The Government appreciate that now is not an easy time for business, especially for small firms in the size range which my noble friend has identified in his amendment. I fully accept the comments made by Members of the Committee on this point. I shall come back in a few moments to the precise terms of my noble friend's amendment and I hope I shall have something to say then which will be helpful to my noble friend and to the Committee. However, I wish first to spend a little time on the effects of the reductions in national insurance contributions.
Before I touch on that, perhaps I may make a few comments on the financial effect of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that the financial effect was neutral. The Bill gives savings in public expenditure

1003
which enable the Government to devote resources to areas of greater priority in the social security system. My right honourable friend Lord Jenkin made that point.
The National Insurance Fund is independent of the Consolidated Fund. I am sure that the noble Lord knows perfectly well that statutory sick pay is not a drain on the National Insurance Fund; it comes indirectly from the Consolidated Fund. Quite separately, the current state of the National Insurance Fund has allowed us to propose reductions in employers' contributions which we hope will go some way towards meeting the complaints that have been made. I hope that the Committee will be prepared to welcome all these factors.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: Will the noble Lord give way? I am extremely grateful to him for doing so. I referred to the total public expenditure, which is broadly neutral. It is £250 million on each side. The Committee would be extremely grateful to the Minister if he could confirm that the Government see the rebate in the National Insurance Fund as completely separate. The reduction in the compensation is not always to be matched by the reduction in the national insurance contributions.
Lord Henley: I can give no assurance as to what my right honourable friend or any future Secretary of State might wish or be able to do. It all depends on the state of the National Insurance Fund. On this occasion, my right honourable friend has found it possible to make some reductions in the level of national insurance contributions. He proposes to make those when we lay the order for them. He also proposes to make changes to the banding. Those are broadly neutral in cost, but the financial effects of the Bill produce savings. As I explained during Second Reading—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Would my noble friend be good enough to confirm what I said? It was that the effect of the Bill is a saving in public expenditure. Can he quantify that, please?
Lord Henley: The effect of the Bill will be to produce a saving of the order of approximately £250 million, though I cannot remember the exact figure. At the same time we propose reductions in national insurance contributions payable by employers which will broadly match that. We are also changing the bands of statutory sick pay, which will produce further savings of £100 million. I think it would be easier to explain that when we reach the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, which I understand relates directly to those savings.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, deserves a fuller answer to his question. It is true that we would not expect my noble friend to speak either for the present Secretary of State or for future governments. However perhaps he can indicate whether the general intention behind the amendment is to set a precedent that could be
1004
followed and that may well be followed. I think my noble friend ought to make clear whether decisions on both those legs will be taken separately.
Lord Henley: As I said, I cannot bind my right honourable friend. He must look at the current state of the National Insurance Fund before he makes any reductions. The two are quite distinct. I cannot promise any matching reductions, should there be any future changes.
As I explained during Second Reading, in putting together the combined package of SSP changes and national insurance contribution reductions, the Government have paid particular attention to the special problems of the small employer. I explained to the House how the reductions would work and gave some examples of the practical effects for employers of different size and sickness experience. It is clear from the representations which continue to be made that the extent of these has not been fully grasped and I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I go into a little more detail about this. It is a very important point and should go on the record.
Although the proposed reductions go across the whole spectrum of employers' contributions, they are proportionately much greater in respect of employees in the lower earnings bands—that is, those earning £185 a week or less. Thus, from April 1991 it is proposed that the lower rates of 5, 7 and 9 per cent. should be reduced by 0·4 per cent. to 4·6, 6·6 and 8·6 per cent. respectively. This compares with the much smaller reduction of 0·05 per cent. on the employer's contribution in respect of employees earning over £185 a week.
Concentrating the reductions on the lower paid will particularly help those employers who would benefit from my noble friend's amendment. This is because such employers are generally more likely than the larger employer to have employees in these earnings ranges working for them. The contribution reductions in total are worth £250 million to employers and £150 million of this sum is made up from the changes in the lower rates.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but this point is important and it is not too easy to get clear what is meant. He seems to assume that small firms automatically employ people at lower wage levels. I accept that this is often true but there is an increasing number of small firms which employ only a few people who are, however, at a relatively high-tech level. Therefore those firms may pay relatively high salaries to that small number of people. I challenge the assumption that because the number of employees is small they are necessarily low paid. If I have got the argument right, I believe that is what the noble Lord suggests, but I do not believe that it is correct.
Lord Henley: I totally accept what the noble Baroness suggests. It is only a trend, but the smaller employer tends to pay lower wages. Perhaps I may give one example: many farmers tend to be small employers. No one would argue that the agricultural wage is one of the highest; it tends to be on the low

1005
side. Immediately all farmers will enter the discussion. This is only a trend, it is not automatically the case. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I hope that what I have to say will to some extent open a possibility that might solve the problem rather than dealing with the matter purely in terms of the small employer, automatically assuming that he is the one with the low-paid employees.
I wish to expand on some of the examples I gave to the House at Second Reading. Statistics show that on average an employer can expect about 20 per cent. of his workforce—that is, one in five of the workers—to be absent from work because of sickness during the year and that the average amount of sickness is about three weeks. I do not believe that there is any dispute about these figures of average levels of sickness. They have certainly been accepted by a number of the organisations that have been in touch with us.
On this basis, if we take the employer with five employees all earning £150 a week, if one of those employees is away for a total of three weeks in the year, there will be a net gain to the employer of £173·59. That assumes not just the 80 per cent. reimbursement of SSP but that the employer tops up the difference between the lower rate and higher rate of SSP by occupational sick pay. Even if two employees are both away for three weeks in the year; that is, double the average level of sickness, there is still a gain of £91·18. If in the same size of employer, the employees were earning £184·50 a week; that is, just below the earnings level at which the standard rate of contributions would become payable, the savings of an employer experiencing the same degree of sickness as I have just described would be even greater: £825·79 and £764·98 respectively. If we look at an employer with 20 employees in those earnings ranges, the saving would be even more marked. Many Members of the Committee will have seen the calculations produced by the National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses. The federation was kind enough to give me a copy of those calculations when it saw me last week, for which I thank it. Those show the effect on a single employee at four different earnings ranges. I do not dispute those figures, but it would be more realistic to look at the position in the context of the total number of employees in the workforce and the likely sickness that they would experience, as I have done in the examples I have just given.
I believe that I have said enough to emphasise the extent of the advantage which smaller employers (if their employees tend to be low-paid) have providing—I accept this is an important proviso—that they do not experience abnormal sickness.
I dc not for a moment pretend that all employers will gain, or break even, from the combined effect of the SSP/NI contribution package. That would be an absurd claim. The package as a whole cannot be neutral. The same considerations do not apply in respect of employees earning more than £185 a week, where the reduction in the employer's national insurance contribution is not so high. Of course, the very small employer, described by my noble friend, who has the misfortune to experience significant
1006
sickness in his workforce will not have the opportunity to recoup the extra SSP costs from the reduced national insurance contributions.
It is this last situation—the small employer experiencing above average sickness in his workforce—to which the Government have been giving particular consideration since Second Reading. We have been especially impressed by the representations made about the difficulties of applying averages to employers that have very few employees. Although most spells of sickness are short, if, for example, an employer with two employees should have one of those away for a protracted time (in the extreme case for the full 28 weeks for which SSP is payable) he would not only have insufficient other employees to gain from the reductions in national insurance contributions, he would probably also have to employ someone else whilst the employee was away. In larger firms neither of those situations will necessarily apply.
In the light of those considerations, we have been giving thought as to how the situation might be alleviated for such an employer. We have given serious consideration to my noble friend's amendment, and that of my two noble kinsmen. We feel that my noble friend has pitched his amendment at about the right level (five employees), whereas we feel that my noble kinsmen Lord Russell and Lord Stanley, who have pitched it at 20, have probably gone too high because at that size averages will begin to bite, if I may use that expression. But following what I said earlier, the particular problem we are seeking to redress is that of the small employer with abnormal sickness loads, who will not get the full benefit of the proposed reductions in National Insurance contributions. What we have in mind is a procedure which would enable a small employer—I stress we are only talking about small employers—to revert to claiming 100 per cent. SSP after an employee has been sick for a specified number of weeks.
As the Committee will appreciate, the crunch is how we define a small employer. My noble friend's amendment suggests five employees or fewer; a subsequent amendment from my noble kinsman Lord Russell proposes fewer than 20 employees. As I have said, we think my noble friend has it about right. As he will know, however, the use of a specific number of employees as the determining factor as to what is or is not a small employer is not without its difficulties. There could, for example, be problems where the employer's workforce fluctuated. We also need to look at how we deal with associated employers. There could also be problems with an employer with a large number of employees all earning below the lower earnings limit and only two or three above that limit.
We are, therefore, urgently exploring at the present time, possible other parameters which might be used to define a small employer to see whether those would be more sensible than relating any new rule specifically to the number of employees in the workforce at a particular time. I want to stress we are not ruling out the use of numbers. We are, for example, looking at how a small employer is defined in other legislation to see whether that can help. Another promising

1007
possibility is to relate the definition to the amount of national insurance contributions paid in the previous year. That would have the advantage for the employer of excluding from the reckoning any employees earning below the lower earnings limit who did not quality for SSP.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Will my noble kinsman give way? When he says that he is not ruling out a numbers definition, is he open to the suggestion that the figure might be more than five?
Lord Henley: I cannot go that far. We feel that five is about right. As I have said, once we go above five averages begin to bite. The compensation we propose through the reduction in national insurance contributions will begin to take effect. It is only with the small employer that we see problems. I am afraid that I cannot offer my noble kinsman any hope that we might consider more than five employees.
As the Committee will understand, we need also to look carefully at the administrative consequences of such an arrangement to try to provide the most practical and viable method for employers—a point rightly stressed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, because employers, especially small ones, sometimes have problems in administering statutory sick pay and other matters relating to my department and the Inland Revenue in operating what might be a dual system of reimbursement.
I cannot usefully take this matter any further now. Although I accept the spirit of my noble friend's amendment, the Government cannot accept it as drafted. I give a specific undertaking that the Government will come forward on Report with their own amendment along the broad lines I have indicated. In the light of that I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and that my noble kinsman Lord Russell will not press his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have supported this group of amendments. In particular, I express my warm appreciation for what my noble friend the Minister has just said. When I moved the amendment I said that the test of referring to the number of employees might not necessarily be right. I am attracted by his suggestion of quantifying the exemption, if such it be, by reference to the amount of national insurance contributions paid. It seemed to me that that might have considerable advantages.
I hope that my noble friend will be open to argument on the question of what the effect of the exemption would be. Although he dealt with the point very briefly, he indicated that the effect would be 100 per cent. reimbursement over and above a certain level of statutory sick pay.
Lord Henley: The intention would be to reimburse those who suffered abnormal levels of sickness when their statutory sick pay extended beyond a certain time. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: That is what I was afraid of. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I am not sure that the small businesses we are talking about would find it possible to administer such a system. My suggestion would take them out of the Bill altogether and leave them in exactly the same position as they are now. I hope that my noble friend and my right honourable friend in another place may still feel able to consider that option.
I fear that, if there is to be additional relief for firms whose employees suffer exceptional sickness, in the end the position will be the same as with the 7 per cent. compensation for the national insurance contribution, up to 25 per cent. of which is never claimed, as my noble friend told me in the letter that I quoted. If that is the case we may have spent nearly an hour and a half to no avail because those eligible will not be able to benefit from the amendment. I make no apology for spending the time of this committee on considering the problems of small businesses. I hope that my noble friend will look very carefully at a suggestion which will not involve those small firms in any additional administration. That is what we want to see.
Lord Henley: I do not want my noble friend to be under any misapprehension. I do not believe that we can follow a line under which there would be two separate rates depending on the size of the firm. It is a question of finding a suitably simple form of reimbursement which would allow small businesses, when they experience exceptional levels of sickness, to receive 100 per cent. reimbursement.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: It would be churlish of me if I did not acknowledge that my noble friend has gone a very long way towards meeting the spirit of the amendment. It is clear from the way in which he has addressed your Lordships that the Government are open to further representations and discussion as to precisely how the relief may be defined and administered. We should all be grateful to my noble friend for the fact that there is to be relief for the very smallest firms. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): If Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 5.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("payments)") to ("and") in line 15 and insert ("after the words "prescribed circumstances," there shall be inserted the words "and in the circumstances in paragraph (aa) below";").
The noble Earl said: One has to be grateful for small mercies. This one is very small. I should like to ask my noble kinsman whether he can explain further one point which caused me some considerable surprise. He said that when one reaches 20, statistics begin to bite. I have never known anyone to publish an opinion poll based on 20 respondents. If such a poll were published I should be very surprised if anyone gave it very great weight. Before the matter is disposed

1009
of, can my noble kinsman tell us whether he has any statistical evidence for the proposition that at the level of 20, statistics begin to bite? I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that the expression I used was a happy one. However, my noble kinsman will understand that the greater the number of employees a firm has the more relevant average levels of sickness will be. There are particular problems which affect firms with a very small number of employees so that those statistics become irrelevant. However, I believe that one can say that at the level of 20 employees they are relevant and over the year will average out at more or less the same level for all, depending on the different degree of sickness in different industries.
Earl Russell: If my noble kinsman will write to me before Report stage justifying that statement I shall read what he says with a great deal of interest. I wait to see what the Government bring forward on Report and in the meantime I shall reserve my position.
Baroness Seear: The Minister made the even more surprising statement that above five statistical figures start to have some meaning. I cannot imagine how he arrived at that conclusion. Will he also explain that in his letter to my noble friend? It seems a most extraordinary figure to have arrived at.
Lord Henley: I shall write to the noble Baroness. The fewer involved the less relevant a statistic might be to an individual employer.
Earl Russell: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("80") and insert ("91").
The noble Lord said: I noted what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding had to say and the many points that have been taken care of in the discussion of earlier amendments. My noble friend had a hand in putting together the scheme in the early 1980s, and he was succeeded by my right honourable friend Sir Norman Fowler. The key point is that at that time there was full consultation with industry. In relation to this particular Bill there has been no consultation at all.
Notwithstanding the fact that my noble friend Lord Henley said at Second Reading (at col. 414 of Hansard for 11th December 1990) that he could assure the House that:
"There will be ample time for consultation… My door will remain open to any person",
in fact, he and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State have not discussed the matter with the CBI. On 10th January my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wrote to the CBI—
Lord Henley: My right honourable friend and I have had a meeting with the CBI.
Lord Mottistone: There was a meeting before Christmas but not after Christmas. In the final sentence of his letter, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said:
1010
"I think we are both fully aware of each other's position. I am doubtful, therefore, that any further meeting would serve any useful purpose at this time".
That seems to me to be a blunt way of not discussing the matter.
One point that may be relevant to the earlier amendments is that it might be helpful if my noble friend Lord Henley were to have discussions with the CBI when considering what he might put in place of Amendment No. 1. That might redress some of the balance.
I turn now to my amendment. It would have the effect of making the Government's package of proposals for changing the statutory sick pay scheme cost neutral. That is the key feature of what we seek to achieve by changing the figure of 80 per cent. to 91 per cent. In this area there is no connection with the 91 per cent. that was mentioned earlier in another connection. It happens to be the best arithmetical result in order to make the cost completely neutral.
Under present proposals the reduction of employers' National Insurance contributions would broadly compensate employers for the 27 per cent. reduction in the amount of SSP reimbursed. However, the Government have offered no compensation for the increased costs which employers will bear as a result of the changes in SSP rates announced in the Secretary of State's annual benefit uprating statement. Because of the rise in earnings threshold which determines entitlement to the higher rate of SSP, fewer employees will be eligible for the higher rate of SSP, losing £9 per week. In many cases employers would have to make up the shortfall and their costs would therefore rise by as much as £100 million, according to the Government's own figures.
My amendment would increase the employers' reimbursement rate to 91 per cent. This would increase the amount reimbursed to employers by £99 million, and as long as the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions remains as proposed, the total package would therefore be cost-neutral on the Government's calculations. With the economy now in recession such a change is surely necessary. That is the basic reasoning for this amendment.
We had occasion to ask employers how much they reckoned the proposals in the Bill would cost them without the amendment. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter to tell your Lordships exactly how much these companies think the cost will be, because it was his initiative that led to these figures being produced. The fact of the matter is that in this affair it will be very much a matter of rough justice, however it ends up. There will be some winners but very many more losers, and some losers may lose a great deal.
It is all very well to worry about the small firms. Of course we do not want small firms to go bust. In my part of the country, the Isle of Wight, we probably have more small firms per head of population than most other parts of the country, so I do not decry what has been said on the earlier amendments. But the success of this country in producing enough wealth in

1011
order to survive and pay for things like social security depends on the bigger companies, and they must be considered too.
As very much a half-way house solution I strongly recommend to your Lordships and to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the figure of 91 per cent. goes some way, but not all the way, to making a fairer balance of charge as between industry and government. I hope very much that my noble friend will feel that he can accept it. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: From these Benches I rise to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in introducing the amendment has spoken, as he frequently does, on behalf of employers and has expressed the views of the CBI. I should like to express concern about the propositions in the Bill from the standpoint of employees.
Everyone in this Chamber, and I think the Government, wants to see a growth of occupational schemes. The reason why the Government say the Bill is now a possibility is that it is claimed that occupational schemes have grown enormously, and the figure of 91 per cent. of all employments has been advanced. We know that not all occupational schemes are good ones; some of them have exclusion clauses and others provide only a limited amount of cover, but in my view employers are unlikely to agree to improvements in existing occupational schemes or to their introduction if they do not think they are going to get reimbursement of SSP. In particular, those employers who hitherto have been making up the difference between SSP and full pay will have to pay more money in make-up, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said, because of the changes in the lower and higher rates of SSP. Therefore, any pressure that might be exerted to improve existing schemes is not likely to meet with a very realistic or helpful response from employers.
I share the views which have already been expressed that at a time of recession it is in nobody's interests, either employees of small firms or employees in much larger organisations, if further costs are imposed upon employers in the circumstances outlined in the Government's propositions both in relation to the Bill itself and in further proposals outlined by the Minister.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say that he sees some point in the amendment and that the Government will view it with some favour. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has made the key point about the amendment; it is the break-even amendment. Even the Secretary of State did not claim that employers actually break even as things are. The National Federation for the Self-Employed has calculated the effects of having one employee sick. At £100 a week the employer would lose £6.77 a week; at a wage of £184.50 a week the employer would lose £17.97 a week.
1012
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is going to quote the figures collected by the CBI for individual firms. They are telling figures, and I look forward to hearing him quote them. I should like to add just one more figure which was made available to me at 12 o'clock today. It comes from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which calculates that the Bill will cost the universities £1 million a year. I think that that is in line with the other figures that the noble Lord intends to quote.
That aspect also draws attention to something that has not yet been mentioned, which is the effect of the Bill on the big public sector employers. Here we have a further problem which may tend to diminish any putative saving that the Government think they will derive from the Bill. I dread to think what the figure may be for the amount that the Bill is going to cost the National Health Service. If it goes ahead, the Government will have to decide whether they are prepared to allow beds to close to provide the necessary savings or whether because of the political consequences it will be necessary to stump up the necessary cash. I think it very likely that they may find they have to stump up the necessary cash, in which case the putative saving is diminished even further than we thought it would be.
The Bill is also going to have quite a serious effect on local authorities. I thought that this Government had got into enough difficulties with local authority finance and did not need to go looking for more. Evidently they are gluttons for punishment, but I do not think that this Chamber should necessarily help them to get it.
I want to mention two further points, one of which is the GATT. Your Lordships may ask what the GATT has to do with statutory sick pay. My answer is nothing. That is precisely why it is relevant—an answer which is perhaps superficially, on a Gilbertian level of paradox. It is true that we are seeing a more activist GATT. It is true that farmers who are concerned by this Bill are at the moment in the firing line. The Prime Minister said just before Christmas that it would be a tragedy if the GATT ended with no agreement being reached. I think that is a view from which there would be very few dissentients in this Chamber. That means that we may be placing upon farmers today, and perhaps on other producers tomorrow, burdens which many of us would place only with very great regret.
With a more activist GATT in the field it will be vital to any country to hang on to those ways of softening life for employers and making it cheaper for them to stay in business which do not contradict any GATT rules. As far as I know, reimbursing employers for statutory sick pay is not contrary to GATT rules, and in the near future ways of helping our employers which are not contrary to GATT rules will be like gold. Where we have anything like that we should keep it.
I shall make one final point. My noble kinsman the Minister dwelt on occupational sick pay schemes. I agree with what he said, but there seems to me to be

1013
a risk that as business does not like uncertainty and as this Bill will increase uncertainty dramatically for some businesses and significantly for others, firms may be slightly less eager to develop occupational sick pay schemes than they are at present. Therefore this Bill may do damage to a development in which the Minister and I believe, as do most of the rest of the Committee. I for one would regret it.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to comment on a point arising from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. If I understood the noble Lord aright, he said that a lower paid worker under conditions of sickness is likely to be worse off because of the proposed changes.
So far in this debate it has not been mentioned that a high proportion of low paid workers are members of ethnic minorities who are apt to be employed to a considerable extent although not exclusively by other members of ethnic minorities. If it can be shown that this Bill will have an unduly unfavourable effect on ethnic minorities, it could be seen as a case of indirect discrimination. As I fully realise, like most cases of indirect discrimination it would not be intended, but that would be the consequence. That might lead to a case before the European Court.
That is a point which has been put forward by the Institute of Personnel Management. It is an important point to take into account.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: In discussing this amendment the Committee has been considering the financial effects of the Bill. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will allow me to say that so far he has been rather coy in his response to questions about those effects. I therefore invite his attention to the Statement on the financial effects of this measure as given on the front of the Bill. It states perfectly clearly that:
"Clause 1 will produce savings in public expenditure of £181m in 1991–92, rising to £190m in 1992–93 and £197m in 1993–94. In addition subsection (3) of the Clause will result in an increase of national insurance income of £71m, £75m and £78m in the three respective years".
That seems clearly to indicate—indeed it is the purpose of the Bill—that there will be a saving in excess of £100 million of public expenditure. That is how the whole matter started; namely, as part of the expenditure round and as the deal struck between the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Treasury. We know that; and we also know that it was done without consultation. I believe that it is useful that the Committee has a clear view of the financial effects centrally.
As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, the CBI has been researching among its members as to what will be the additional costs to them. Understandably a number of companies are not happy about disclosing their names—although one of them has—but the CBI at least is satisfied that for a large chemical company the additional cost will be £460,000 a year and that for a large manufacturing company it will be as high as £2 million a year. To Marks & Spencer, which is a very
1014
well known and efficient firm and to its credit the company let its name be disclosed, it will be £600,000 a year.
We are not therefore dealing in small change, even with such big companies. It is also a time when they are desperately trying to keep down their costs and when appeals rightly are being made by the Government to trade unions not to inflate industrial costs by excessive wage demands. Yet the Government now come forward with a proposal which will increase the costs of those firms by figures of that kind. Consequently the purpose of my noble friend's amendment, which is designed to deal with that situation and which he assured the Committee would do so (I have not myself followed his calculations but I know that he is extremely well informed on these matters), is to prevent that increase in costs.
I wonder whether any students of our economy at the moment would not feel that it is the duty of Parliament to do everything possible to restrain the increase in industrial costs in the present situation and that it would be wholly irresponsible of Her Majesty's Government to insist on putting them up artificially.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may mention that he referred to a figure of £100 million. Did he deduct in that second figure the £71 million from the £181 million? The effect of this Bill is that one would have to add together those figures. On its own the effect of this Bill is to give an increase in the public exchequer of £258 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That is true because we are concerned with the difference between the national insurance fund and the national funds, as we are all well aware. I thought it only fair—I do not mind that the noble Lord does not—to add that the increase in exchequer costs was only in part offset by an increase in national insurance fund income. That is a matter of opinion but it seems to me that that is the fairest way to put the matter.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I owe it to my noble friend Lord Mottistone to spell out in perhaps two or three more sentences than I did in my remarks on the earlier amendment why I feel some hesitation in supporting his amendment. I said that I thought the Government were justified in the general thrust of this Bill subject to the problem of small businesses that we dealt with in the last group of amendments, where the Government indicated that they were prepared to make concessions.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as one of the first Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, has already adverted to the problem; namely, that when a spending Minister seeks to agree his programmes with the Treasury, specifically with the Chief Secretary (I have sat on both sides of that table as did my noble friend in an earlier decade), the fact is that he is engaged in a trade-off because there is an upper limit to what the Chancellor and indeed almost certainly the Cabinet have already indicated have to be the bounds of public spending.

1015
If one goes back and reads the Statement made in another place and repeated in this Chamber about the social security uprating, one can see that the Minister, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, specifically referred to the linkage between the savings that could be achieved by this change to statutory sick pay and a number of other highly desirable improvements in the social security system which, by no stretch of the imagination, could ever be visited on anybody else such as an employer. There is here the position of an increasing number of employers operating employment sick pay and paying their employees amounts on different scales but paying them of their own free will because they feel it is part of their responsibility as employers. We have to consider that 91 per cent. of employees are employed by firms which operate some kind of sick pay scheme for their employees. That does not mean to say that the 91 per cent. of employees are covered. Some more research is needed on that point.
One should consider what the Government are able to afford for next year. As the Secretary of State said, they have made these changes open the way to a number of other important improvements both small and large and I think that the Committee will recognise that they are all improvements for which in one way or another every single one of us has been pressing over the years. They are improvements which will now take effect. The independent living fund has multiplied twelvefold in the course of three years and in this year it will have its resources doubled to £62 million. The independent living fund helps the most seriously disabled people who find themselves faced with difficult situations which are often far beyond the ability of the ordinary statutory payments to cover. There are sometimes hundreds and occasionally thousands of pounds necessary to meet the needs of their disabilities. It is done in a most imaginative way.
I have the honour to be a vice-president of Motability and will be handing over to it yet another car. An extra £1 million has been spent on expensive adaptations. There have been changes in the mobility allowance and there have also been changes in income support. Members of this Committee sat through long debates on the Social Security Bill and discussed the problems of income support. The real increase to the basic pension for those aged between 60 and 74 in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit has been more than the retail price index can justify.
There has also been a major upward adjustment in a field which brings together the interests of elderly and disabled people; that is, the limits relating to residential care and nursing homes. There cannot be any Member who has not been faced with a problem similar to that which I faced in my former constituency. People said that they could not look after their clients on the limits which the Department of Social Security was prepared to allow. The Government have now met that problem and in London where costs are high the increases are
1016
substantial. I also remind the Committee that there has been an increase in child benefit for the eldest child.
In the light of my experience as social services Secretary of State and as a Chief Secretary, I regard it as being inconceivable that the Government, in view of the pressures that they face, could make any of those highly desirable changes—for which there can be no other source than the Exchequer—unless they were prepared to offer savings in an area in which employers are becoming increasingly responsible; that is, regarding it as being within the normal scope of employment to cover employees during short-term sickness—
Lord Mottistone: Does my noble friend believe that anything that he has said has any bearing on my amendment?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend is asking for a larger reimbursement in order to remain neutral. The Government have had to find savings and I am reminding the Committee upon what they have spent those savings. For that reason I find the amendment impossible. How can one have one's cake and eat it? How can one go from 80 per cent. to 91 per cent. while at the same time applauding all the splendid things which my right honourable friend announced in another place before Christmas? Those matters do not add up. If we are to have the benefit of additional expenditure we must give the Government the facility to find the savings. The Government are doing that by cutting the reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. and changing the banding on social security—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Will my noble friend carry that argument to its logical conclusion? He has been rather selective in calling a halt at where he believes the overriding interest of the nation justifies that. If as a result there is an increase in unemployment and the cost of servicing the unemployed continues to eat up some of the margins that he believes the Government will have available, should that not be taken into account?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: We then come to the other side of the equation. The national insurance contributions, and so forth, do not enter into the public expenditure totals. In dealing with the public the Government must balance the extra spending with the reduction in compensation as regards the extra contribution. Broadly speaking, they have done that. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services deals with the Chancellor he is dealing with public expenditure. If he wishes to make improvements in his area of public expenditure he must be prepared to find savings.
I have listened to my noble friend and read the Second Reading debate in this Chamber and the debates in another place. I fear that I cannot accept the main burden of the argument; namely, that the Government should not be acting in such a way because that puts additional expenditure on the generality of employers. I believe that the other

1017
improvements are worth that cost and, therefore, cannot find it in my heart to support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend Lord Jenkin because he has challenged my proposition. We all accept that the Government's handling of social security improvements has been marvellous and is a fine achievement. However, there appeared to be a complete gap in my noble friend's argument in that he suggested that it must be financed in this way. He will be aware that the capacity to finance the present social security system and improvements to it depends on the efficient working of our economy. If we cannot create sufficient wealth by the efficient working of the economy we cannot support even the present level of social security benefits, never mind higher levels.
The point made by the critics of this Bill is not that one should not in some way or another finance such improvements appropriately through taxation. On the contrary, the point is that by using this method—incidentally, without prior consultation with industry —one is hampering the efficient working of the economy and therefore the capacity to produce the wealth necessary to maintain our social security system. My noble friend and I have sat on both sides of the table but, with great respect, he now appears to ignore the point.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may respond and then I shall sit down. One is talking about 0.05 per cent. of the total employment bill which currently runs at more than £300 billion. I should have more sympathy for the employers if I believed that they were seeking to keep down and hold at a more reasonable level the pay increases that they are prepared to give to their employees. I am chairman of various companies and know how difficult that is, but it can be achieved. I have corresponded with the CBI on the subject but now I find that at its conference it wrings its hands about inflationary pay demands which its members are conceding and complains in this Chamber about the 0.05 per cent. which must be set against all the other desirable aspects in the area of social security.
Lord! Peyton of Yeovil: I understood that the point behind my noble friend's amendment is that the Government should not add wantonly to industry's costs. It has been my impression that industry has received a great deal of advice from the Government. It has also been the experience of industry to find that advice somewhat negatived by the process of constantly adding gratuitously to the costs of industry. One is left wondering whether this is a particularly good moment for the Government to choose to add even a small proportion. When my noble friend Lord Jenkin rose to make his point I listened, as always, with profound respect. However, it did not appear to be relevant to the amendment. I believe that the point is simple—that this is not the time to add to industry's costs in any way. I shall not presume to repeat the cogent arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I express only the fervent hope and devout prayer that the
1018
Government's ears may be opened and that they will agree to think again. I am minded to support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Without going into the detailed arguments, I should like to reinforce what has been said. This is not the time at which deliberate additions should be made to the cost of industry. There may be moments when to do that is tolerable but in my view at present it is not tolerable.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am never quite certain about the role of this Chamber as compared with that of the other place when dealing with these matters of detail. In the other place, if one had personal examples from constituents which could help to make the point under discussion on any Bill, one could use such examples to make one's contribution. In this Chamber we seem to feel it our duty to deal only with the global effect, which can run into millions of pounds, or 0.5 per cent. of something, which can amount to a great deal of money.
I should like to revert to the practice which I felt it was my duty to follow in another place. One listens with great care to the overall results which emerge from investigations made by the CBI as presented by my noble friend. However, I am connected with a few companies for which I have responsibility. When these percentages first appeared, I went to some trouble to examine what would be the result. Some of my companies employ perhaps no more than 10 or 12 people while others employ up to 150 or 200 people. Therefore, they cover a broad range.
I should like to tell my noble friend who will answer the debate that the effect of this measure is considerable. At present we are entering into a recession. We hope that it will be short and that we shall quickly return to happier times. However, at present the recession is causing us to think very hard about every penny which must be expended. In this area I can speak with complete authority and over the past two months we have had to dispense with something like 20 people. The financial situation of the companies involved has necessitated that action. I have no reason to believe that my experience, from which I can speak with full confidence, is any different from that of other companies where I am not in such a position.
My noble friend said that this was not the time to add, however marginally, to the problems which industry in general has at present. That is a very cogent point. While this Committee should look at matters globally and should not necessarily be swayed by the good or ill which one small action can bring, I believe that the evidence here shows sufficiently that this is not only the wrong action to take but the wrong time at which to try it.
In a completely different sphere, I should like to take up the very real point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on GATT. During the five years in which I was a Member of the European Parliament (where we went into matters in detail rather differently from the way in which that is done in this Chamber)

1019
I discovered that many of the problems in international trade came under the heading of what were known as "non-tariff barriers". Under GATT, nations could not put on a tariff to protect their various industries. However, they tried to find methods of imposing what effectively amounted to a tariff; for example, by setting standards as to the quality of certain sections of a commodity. We discovered that the Japanese in particular were very adept at being able to produce a non-tariff barrier point which had the effect of putting up a barrier and giving protection very much to the disadvantage of industries in this country.
In this instance, this provision would not be infringing the spirit or the general approach set out by GATT. I agree with the noble Earl that to remove that help, however small it may be, is rather stupid. We could keep within the rules and yet could make a tiny contribution towards helping the general competitiveness of our industry. I came here today particularly to vote for my noble friend's amendment. By keeping this matter as level as possible at this time, we are doing our duty in helping the Government to meet the very grave financial problems which they must face. One is not and should not be oblivious to those problems. By accepting this amendment we should be doing just that. At the same time, we should not be injuring the grave necessity of helping our industries and business generally to play a part in producing the wealth which we need if we are to have the way of life that we believe should be ours today.
Lord Henley: I start by dealing with two points. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter accused me of being coy on the figures relating to the savings. Quite rightly he corrected me and for the sake of the record I should like to put that right. I said that the Bill will lead to public expenditure savings of some £250 million. It would be correct to say that there will be public expenditure savings from the Bill of around £180 million. In addition, the Bill will mean an increase in national insurance income. My noble friend is always very keen to maintain a distinction between the two and he is quite right to do so. Such an increase will amount to some £70 million arising from the ending of the 7 per cent. compensation. However, that is not a public expenditure saving.
The second point on which I should like briefly to touch is the point made by the Baroness, Lady Seear. She suggested that provisions in the Bill might produce unfavourable consequences for employers of ethnic minorities. If that were so, the Government would be very disturbed. However, I should emphasise that we believe that the provisions in this Bill will have no effect on employees and I do not believe that employers—whether or not of ethnic minorities—will react in the way which the noble Baroness and others fear. However, I undertake that the Government will look at any evidence produced to the contrary by the noble Baroness or anybody else.
When I first saw the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone I was somewhat nonplussed as to why he had chosen the figure of 91 per cent. At first I
1020
thought it might be in honour of the new year or that it might indicate some recognition of the figure, which we all quoted, of 91 per cent. of employees working for employers who provided some form of occupational sick pay. However, my noble friend explained his point and I now understand that the level has been very carefully chosen. Nevertheless, I regret that I shall be unable to accept the amendment.
As my noble friend has explained, were the reduction in the reimbursement rate to be restricted to 91 per cent. instead of 80 per cent., this would reduce the public expenditure savings by some £100 million. This would in turn broadly match the savings which will be made through not increasing the higher rate of SSP in April and through raising the dividing line between the two SSP rates to £185 a week.
As the Committee will be aware, the changes affecting the higher rate of SSP and those entitled to it are not part of this Bill. There will be an opportunity to discuss these provisions within the next few weeks when the SSP (Rate of Payment) Order comes before the House along with the other uprating orders. Now is not the time, therefore, to have a detailed debate about these proposals.
It may be helpful in the context of the discussion on this amendment, however, if I briefly set out the provisions which will be in the uprating order and which were announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 24th October. As the Committee will know, there are two rates of SSP. The lower rate currently goes to those employees whose average weekly earnings are between £46 and £125 —£46 being the lower earnings level at which national insurance contributions first become payable. It is intended that that lower rate be increased by the full RPI increase of 10·9 per cent. from £39·25 to £43·50, which is an increase of £4·25 a week. The increase recognises the fact that low paid and part-time workers are less likely to receive occupational sick pay from their employer when they fall sick. At the same time the dividing line between the two rates which, as I said, is presently £125, should be increased to cover the whole range of earnings bands within which employers pay the lower rates of contributions. This will be £185 from April 1991. Finally, it is proposed that the higher rate of SSP will stay unchanged at £52·50 a week.
Those changes will reduce public expenditure by around £100 million in 1991–92. The Government maintain that, despite those changes, the vast majority of employees will receive no reduction in the total payment they receive when sick. This is because of the way occupational sick pay under the employer's own scheme interacts with SSP. And here, of course, lies the reasoning behind my noble friend's amendment.
My noble friend argued that although the reductions in national insurance contributions will broadly compensate employers for the costs of the proposals in the Bill, they will not cover the additional £100 million which arises under the uprating proposals. I accept that that is the case. But I cannot

1021
accept that it would be right to cover that by pitching the SSP reimbursement rate for all employers at 91 per cent. instead of 80 per cent.
In the first place not all employers will experience extra SSP costs as a result of the changes in the uprating proposals. While we expect most employees affected to have SSP topped up by occupational sick pay, some, of course, will not. Employers without occupational sick pay schemes would therefore obtain the ad vantage of the higher reimbursement rate proposed by my noble friend even though there was no extra cost to them. Similarly, the higher reimbursement rate would apply equally to SSP paid in respect of employees earning £125 a week or less as to those with higher earnings. Such employees will have had the benefit of a full RPI increase, so again the employer has no extra costs. In the Government's view, therefore, there is not a strong case in logic to make the change proposed in the amendment. But even given the fact that for many employers their occupational sick pay schemes will have to bear the cost of the changes in the SSP uprating proposals, the Government do not consider that that should impose a significant burden on individual employers.
I feel that my noble kinsman Lord Russell was scaremongering when he spoke of closing beds in NHS hospitals. The effect of £100 million spread throughout all employers will be very small. It represents only a tiny proportion of the total labour costs over the economy as a whole, which are running at well over £300 billion. It is less than 0.03 per cent., which is even lower than the figure of 0.05 per cent. given by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. The figure of 0.03 per cent. represents £100 million spread over the total labour costs which are running at well over £300 billion.
I acknowledge, as my noble friend said, that now is not a good time for business. But the Government do not consider that that modest shift in the balance of provision between state and business should pose specific burdens on employers. In that context I should perhaps stress the Government's record on employers' contribution rates. I remind the Committee that significant reductions in national insurance contributions have been introduced by the Government for employers as well as for employees.
In 1979 employers were paying 13.5 per cent., including the 3.5 per cent. national insurance surcharge. The Government gradually reduced that amount to 10.45 per cent. In 1985 they introduced the three reduced rates of 5 per cent., 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. for lower-paid workers. Those reduced rates are generally of the greatest help to smaller employers whose workforce is more likely to be among the less highly paid. As the Committee is aware, the Government propose to reduce those rates still further to 4.6 per cent., 6.6 per cent. and 8.6 per cent. from next April. Thus in the case of a lower-paid worker the employer's contribution will have been reduced over the 11 years from 13.5 per cent. to 4.6 per cent. As that amounts to little more than 0.03 per cent. of labour costs as a whole, the SSP changes form a very modest
1022
shift in funding to employers, especially when viewed in the context of the Government's past record on national insurance contributions.
Perhaps I can take an example given by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter which related to Marks & Spencer. I cannot confirm or deny its estimate of an additional annual cost of £600,000. I am not sure whether account was taken of the reductions in national insurance contributions. However, to put that in perspective one should note that according to the profit and loss account for the year ending 31st March 1990 its staff costs as a whole were £671 million. That comparison must put the increased costs it claims it will have into some perspective.
The Government decided on the figure of 80 per cent. reimbursement after careful consideration of all the implications. For the reasons I stated we do not believe that it would be appropriate to further change the level of reimbursement to take account of the £100 million which will be saved from the separate SSP changes to be included in the uprating proposals. In those circumstances I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: That response is most disappointing. The figures quoted by my noble friend attempt to show that if one generalises very little money is involved—forgetting what happens to the individual firm and the firm that will go to the wall because it is in difficulty. If that is so, a gesture could be made to industry indicating that the Government recognise and appreciate its problems. My amendment does not go the whole hog and do away with the Bill, which is what I should really like to happen. To accept the amendment would be a practical and sensible gesture by the Government at this time to show that they recognise that industry is in trouble and that they are trying to do something about it. At some later stage, when industry is running better, a new Bill could be produced to change the rules.
To say that this is where we must stop and that the Government will not accept the carefully worked out figures which produce a reasonable neutral balance, strikes me as being most unreasonable. I was delighted by the support I received from these Benches from those of my noble friends experienced in industry who know the effect the Bill will have on companies. I was sorry to hear what was said by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I will not pursue that point because other noble friends shot him down even more effectively than I could do. Those of us who are concerned for industry believe that the amendment goes some way towards recognising the problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, put the point on behalf of the employee. Apart from what the noble Baroness said, I am afraid that we had not studied the impact on the employee as much as perhaps we should. However, it is not only companies wanting to remain solvent and to produce the wealth of the country which are concerned; it is also companies which want to remain solvent and continue to produce jobs for people.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the vice-chancellor told him that the cost would be £100 million. Not only will we hit employees and

1023
companies, but we shall also hit education. Therefore it is surely a matter on which the Government should concede. With that in mind I beg to move.
5.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132; Not-Contents, 80.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hughes, L.

Addington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Airedale, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Aldington, L.

Jeger, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kearton, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Auckland, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Banks, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Barnett, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Birk, B.

Lawrence, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brightman, L.

McNair, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Marsh, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Mayhew, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mersey, V.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monson, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Davies, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denington, B.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gainford, L.

Rochester, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Galpern, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gisborough, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grantchester, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Greenway, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Terrington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hertford, M.

Thurlow, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

1024

Walston, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

White, B.

Winstanley, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Lurgan, L.

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bessborough, E.

Margadale, L.

Blake, L.

Merrivale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Milverton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Orkney, E.

Chesham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Colwyn, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cox, B.

Perth, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Rees, L.

Elton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Selborne, E.

Flather, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stockton, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gormanston, V.

Suffield, L.

Haig, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hood, V.

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Windlesham, L.

Killearn, L.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Am I right in thinking that we shall be discussing Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together?
Lord Henley: The noble and learned Lord is quite correct.
Earl Russell: There seems to be a general sense that the Government are attempting to do something which is rather unwise. The subsection which I am trying to delete authorises the Government, whenever they see fit, to do it again, and as many times as they like, without recourse to further parliamentary legislation. Clause 1(2) has become known in industrial circles as the clause of Damocles. It is known in this House as a Henry VIII clause. If one looked at the view from Tower Hill one might think that those two names had something in common. I have noticed that when one uses the phrase "Henry VIII clause" it sometimes produces a somewhat glazed expression among noble Lords. Most of us know that

1025
there is only one memorable thing about Henry VIII and we cannot quite see how a clause can manage to have six wives.
The procedure was first used in the reign of King Henry VIII. It involves the passing of an Act which authorises a Minister by order to vary the primary legislation. It authorises the Minister to make new law by regulation. I shall not say that that is something which is always improper but it is something which Parliaments in all centuries ought to view with suspicion. It ought not to be done lightly; and when it is done it ought to be for a clearly acceptable objective and with a very clear justification.
In anything that has been said for this clause I do not think that those criteria have in the least been satisfied. I shall not develop the arguments arising from the Donoughmore Scott Report. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will develop those points. I shall say only that I have read the report. I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord has said in the past about it and I expect to do so again.
When we consider a clause of this kind we have to ensure that there is an adequate check on the Executive. Parliaments are not always the most powerful check on the Executive but they are the check which our system is designed to use. We should use them as best we can. We have to concern ourselves with the object of the clause and we have to concern ourselves with its justification. I am not sure that it does very well on either of those criteria. There is less resistance for some objectives than there is for others. If something on the whole beneficial and not particularly damaging is being done by one of these clauses, we may perhaps be more indulgent to the form of it than we should be in other cases.
We have had a rush of them recently, each for a rather worse objective than the previous one. The Henry VIII clause in the Education (Student Loans) Bill was simply designed to authorise the Minister to vary the list of educational institutions at which students were eligible to receive loans. The House on the whole took the view that that was not a particularly harmful objective. The clause in the Courts and Legal Services Bill was perhaps a little more unusual. It sought to allow the Minister to transfer business from the High Court to the county court. That, thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, was modified in the course of its passage. But here we have a very much more dubious objective. The clause is being used to authorise the Minister, by regulation, to lay financial burdens on the subject.
I am sure that my noble kinsman the Minister will wish to object to that form of words. He will wish to say that what we are dealing with is not the laying of a financial burden on the subject but the paying of a reimbursement. In strict form that is true but we are dealing with what is correctly described as statutory sick pay. The employer is under a legal obligation to pay it. If my noble kinsman were to deny that, I would put down a good many amendments at Report stage to ensure an adequate protection for employers. It is
1026
something which the employer has to pay and for which he is no longer being reimbursed so in effect it imposes a financial burden on the subject.
I ask the Committee to consider what its reaction would have been if we had not gone through the initial stage of liability with reimbursement but had gone straight to the imposing of a liability without reimbursement with such a Henry VIII clause involved. I think we should have taken a very dim view of it. There are only two objectives which I should regard as more questionable than this. One is the direct laying of new taxes by a Henry VIII clause and regulation and the other is the creation of new criminal offences. We have no sign yet of the Government doing either of those things but such clauses are becoming more frequent. Sooner or later we shall have to send one back and say that it really will not do.
The justification offered for the clause by my noble kinsman the Minister at Second Reading was equally thin. We were given reassurances both by my noble kinsman and by his right honourable friends Mr. Scott and the Secretary of State that the Government had no present plans further to reduce the rate of reimbursement on employers. I entirely accept those reassurances, but they leave the Government with a very thin justification for this clause. In fact when my noble kinsman justified the clause he did so solely in terms of Executive convenience. He said:
"it is sensible to have a provision that is capable of being changed".
He gave the game away by saying:
"Governments of all complexions acknowledge that as the sensible way to proceed".—[Official Report, 11/12/90; col. 417.]
That is simply the voice of the Executive, the voice of administrative convenience as it has been heard for centuries. The trouble is that it does too much. It has never been in accord with administrative convenience to have Parliaments at all. That is why it is rather important that we have them. It has always been a nuisance to busy ministers to have to justify themselves in Parliament. In fact I do not think I am being fanciful in hearing behind those arguments the irritation in Whitehall that it has to go through legislation to get a Bill on the statute book in the first place. That irritation is a mark of quite how necessary it is that we should go through the parliamentary process.
I fully accept that my noble kinsman will move an amendment to introduce the procedure by affirmative resolution. I welcome that. But, with respect, for this House it is not enough. It ensures the ability to debate whatever the Government may do in future but some of us in this Chamber do not always feel that our debates are listened to with quite the attention that we should like to think they deserve. If we speak in this Chamber with the tongues of men and angels and cannot vote, we have no power. What matters is the ability to vote against the Government and occasionally to win.
A great deal of argument is going on about under what circumstances this Chamber may vote on

1027
something to do with a statutory instrument. I shall not go into that matter any further—it is sub judice with the Procedure Committee at the moment—but it is at present a convention that this Chamber does not directly vote against a statutory instrument. Therefore, if a further reduction in the reimbursement is introduced by a statutory instrument it will in effect be capable of becoming law without the consent of this Chamber. Another place can and may vote against it, but if we in this Chamber let that go through we abandon our right to say no.
For that reason the increasing use of Henry VIII clauses constitutes a contempt of this House. They are being used to do something which I think is thoroughly questionable in itself. Sooner or later we shall have to vote one of these clauses down and get it taken away. We have argued against them before and yet they become more frequent. When will we have a better opportunity to vote one down? I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I have been reading the reasons given by my noble kinsman Lord Henley at Second Reading for not accepting such an amendment. They are quite unconvincing for three main reasons. He stated first at col. 416 of Hansard that the Government had no plans at present to alter the rates. Then, at col. 417, he said that it would be unwise for him to predict the future. It sounds as if he took those statements straight from Sir Humphrey. I really do not know what they mean. Moreover, he repeated that assurance—if you can call it an assurance—during the debate on the first amendment.
Secondly, my noble kinsman went on to say that the level of national insurance contributions is a separate question and could therefore be adjusted if statutory sick pay was altered. That was a nice use of the word "could". Thirdly, he stated that the principle of the Bill was covered in Clause 1 but that the percentage rate charged to employers was not a principle and therefore was appropriate for secondary legislation. If ever there was a chicken and egg case that is a perfect example.
Finally, unless Members of the Committee support Amendment No. 7, the amendment which has just been accepted will be ineffective, in that the Government could put forward an order to alter the rate back to 80 per cent. or, indeed, back to any rate they wished.
Lord Mottistone: My noble friend has stolen my horse: I had intended to make the same point. The effect of winning acceptance of the last amendment will be completely nullified if Amendment No. 7 is not accepted by the Committee. It will mean that any percentage would be vulnerable.
I turn now to Amendment No. 8. It is my experience in this Chamber that both affirmative and negative orders are just as unattackable—if that is the right word—in this place as if we had no powers over them. We can put forward a good argument, but if the relevant order has been passed in another place—and it is up to the Government to organise that—then there is an unwritten rule that we must more or less let
1028
it pass through this Chamber. Moreover, if we do not do so, all sorts of hell could be let loose. Therefore, such opposition has seldom occurred.
In my view orders are not good enough to cover such matters. Of course, administratively, they are splendid but as regards keeping parliamentary control, as mentioned by the noble Earl, we must retain primary legislation to cover such crucial areas. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will support Amendment No. 7 and reject Amendment No. 8.
Lord Carter: It is clear that those of us who have put our names to the amendments, and others, feel that the process of affirmative resolution is not enough. There is a point which is puzzling me and perhaps the Minister will clarify it in his reply. The Bill refers to an order amending the subsection by,
"any greater or lesser percentage".
However, in Amendment No. 8 reference is made only to "a lesser percentage". Therefore, in the most unlikely event of the Government wishing to increase the percentage, would they be able to do so?
I turn now to deal with the effect of this subsection. We on this side of the Committee believe fundamentally in the concept that statutory sick pay is the responsibility of the national community through the national insurance system. We have already debated the fact that this Bill in its totality is not about a saving in costs for this year. If the Government wish to save money they can do so—as they have done this year—by way of the rates and the thresholds of statutory sick pay. They do not need a Bill in order to do so.
Having produced the Bill, the Government say that this year they will roughly balance in global terms the cost to the employer of reduced rebates by reducing the national insurance contributions. The Minister confirmed that these are in fact quite separate issues. Indeed, he did so in his reply to me on a previous amendment. The answer he gave is the reason why the Committee should accept Amendment No. 7. He said that the rebates and the changes in the national insurance programme are entirely separate.
Why therefore do we need a Bill? It is clear that we do not need one in order for the Government to save money. They intend to save money in future years by increasingly shifting the burden of statutory sick pay to employers. Their original intention was to slip through the future changes by way of the negative resolution procedure. They have at least given way on that issue by changing to an affirmative resolution. However, we are quite convinced that this is not the way to do it. As I said, it is not enough. If Members of the Committee will excuse the pun, we hope to help the Government to stiffen their resolution still further by removing the subsection from the Bill.
The Government must return to Parliament through primary legislation if they wish to make changes of principle such as those in respect of the percentage rate of rebate. Such changes must not be brought about by administrative fiat. I urge Members of the Committee to support the amendment so that

1029
we may at least in one case stop this increasing practice of government by regulation and replace it with government by Act of Parliament.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This subsection is a highly objectionable provision. It is all the more objectionable because it is unnecessary for the purpose of the Bill as it has been explained to the Committee. It is by far the most objectionable of all the Henry VIII provisions which noble Lords have had to consider in recent years. It impinges upon fiscal matters (on charges of the subject) and moreover, as I said, it is unnecessary for the purpose of the Bill.
Our liberties depend upon the balance of the constitution. We do not carry a division of powers to a logic Al extreme and conclusion as does the American constitution. However, by and large we keep separate the judicial, the legislative and the executive functions. Unless that is done, liberty has gone. One saw that when the Reichstag surrendered its legislative powers to Hitler to enable him to govern by decree; in other words, it gave him a Henry VIII clause to cover all that he wanted to do.
I entirely agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Amendment No. 8 is quite insufficient. However, it enables us to examine what has been happening by way of the preparation of legislation and by way of the supervision of the work of parliamentary counsel. On the face of the Bill, this subsection is subject to no parliamentary control. How is it that that fact did not alert anyone? It is only by going back to a section of the 1982 Act which is amended—namely, Section 9—and then chasing through the legislation over many pages to Section 45 that we find that the negative procedure applies. However, that appears only after considerable scrutiny. How was the provision ever introduced with only the negative procedure applying to it?
The Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation produced a unaminous report in the 1972/73 Session. It set out three criteria which would govern when there should be an affirmative resolution. This subsection offends against no less than two of them. In paragraph 46 of the report the committee refers to,
"Powers substantially affecting the provisions of Acts of Parliament".
Those are explained as meaning something other than "trivial or tidying-up" procedures. I do not suppose that it can be pretended for a moment that this is merely a matter of trivial tidying up.
Secondly, reference is made to,
"Powers to impose financial charges".
The noble Earl dealt with that, but the sentence continues:
"or to make other forms of financial provision."
So I am bound to ask: how was the provision ever introduced with the negative procedure alone? Have the Government reneged on the acceptance of the report of the Joint Committee? If not, how did it escape notice? Of course I ask that question
1030
rhetorically because your Lordships all know the answer. It is because parliamentary counsel are not responsible to any legal department.
Sir Robert Andrew was recently asked to report on the government legal services. He recommended that parliamentary counsel should be responsible to the law officers. Personally I should have preferred the Lord Chancellor, but Sir Robert's recommendation was certainly better than nothing. However, that was not accepted by the Government and one can only speculate as to the reasons why. The parliamentary counsel still remain responsible only—and only nominally of course—to the Prime Minister, who has other things to do than supervise the drafting of Acts of Parliament.
The other reason why there is no control is that the Legislation Committee of the Cabinet, on which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, served with such distinction for so long, has abnegated its former function of supervising and scrutinising legislation before it is introduced. I am quite certain that in his day the fact that this was, on the face of it, not subject to any parliamentary control and, on scrutiny, was subject only to negative resolution would have set all the wires humming and the Bill would have been referred back to the department.
So much for Amendment No. 8; hut, as the noble Lord has just said, it does not meet the case at all. The Donoughmore Committee recommended not that it should simply be convenient to legislate in this way but that it should be essential, necessary and proven to the hilt. Those were its words. Of course it is highly convenient for the Executive not to have to bother with Parliament as regards its legislation. The "gentleman in Whitehall" does generally know best, but there is one thing he cannot know. However skillfully he cobbles it up, he cannot tell where the shoe is going to pinch the citizen: only the citizen can tell that.
One need not look beyond this Bill for an example. During the discussions on Second Reading and again today, countless objections of a total and economic nature have been produced to cause the Government to be prepared at least to rethink some matters; and recently your Lordships have carried an amendment against the Government. As was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Mottistone, this procedure is available to overturn the considered opinion of your Lordships. When Sir William Harcourt went to the Home Office, he called together the officials and said, "My business is to prevent your governing the country so well that an infuriated population will hang you from the lamp posts of Whitehall." That is the purpose of Parliament: to prevent our being governed with excessive efficiency which does not really take account of where a measure bites.
So one comes back to asking again what I ventured to ask last time: do the Government accept the Donoughmore Report? My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor indicated that they did, by and large, but certainly nothing appears in this Bill to bear that out. The Memorandum bears no resemblance at

1031
all to the Henry VIII clause and neither did the Minister's introduction. It was only when he was reminded to do so that he dealt with it in his reply and then, as has been pointed out by the noble Earl, all he said in effect was that it might be very convenient and it might come in handy some time. That is simply not good enough.
As I have said, this is the worst example we have had, principally because it involves a charge on the citizen. We had a number of Henry VIII provisions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will remember, on the courts Bill. The most egregious—not as objectionable as this but highly objectionable—was a provision allowing the Lord Chancellor to alter the penalty for an assent. He rapidly withdrew it and all the other Henry VIII clauses except one were made subject to affirmative resolution. The one that was not was a minor one affecting rules of court.
Therefore I ask the noble Lord on the Front Bench: does he really justify this as necessary and does he even say it is proper for the purposes of the Bill? I hope that the noble Earl will carry this matter of high constitutional importance into the Division Lobby, unless the noble Lord, Lord Henley, accepts the amendment. If he does, I shall follow him without hesitation.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I have high hopes of the new Conservative Administration under the premiership of Mr. Major. We have been promised a change in the style of government. At the very least, I hope this means that we shall pursue our objectives by different means. One of the worst features of recent legislation has been the proliferation of these Henry VIII clauses, to which reference has been made. We are now facing, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, the worst example that I have known. The folly of the position is shown by the references to the effect of the previous amendment, which will be perfectly useless if this further amendment is not made.
I, too, welcome this amendment providing that there should be affirmative resolution, but I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was absolutely right when he said that this amendment should not have been necessary. We have had a number of discussions in this Chamber about these clauses. We had a long discussion on the Courts and Legal Services Bill, when we virtually had an assurance, although it was slightly modified to me in a subsequent debate, that the Government would not normally try to introduce measures of this kind by negative resolution. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will look at this Bill and consider how such a thing could happen.
I have been a sinner myself. Indeed in a debate on the 14th February at col. 1408, I gave a striking example of what happened to legislation for which I was responsible, under which an order was subsequently made which had, to my mind, the most devastating consequences. But there was nothing at all that the courts could do about it. So it is fair to say
1032
that even the affirmative resolution is no really effective safeguard, not only in this Chamber but in the other place as well.
I can say from my experience that a clause of this kind would never have got through the Legislation Committee when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was Solicitor General. There is no doubt about that. The position has become worse and worse and the courts are powerless if Parliament has in effect given delegated powers to the Minister which in practice are often exercised on the say-so of a relatively junior official, even though a Minister's name may be attached to the order.
Only last July the Court of Appeal turned down a challenge to the use by the Secretary of State for Social Security of delegated powers because it had to. There was no doubt that the Minister had power to make the order, so effect had to be given to it although the Court of Appeal expressed stringent criticisms of what it described as "unprecedented and unsupervised power". This power goes further than that.
When I had the opportunity of initiating a short debate on 14th February last year, I suggested as moderately and as modestly as I could the establishment of a Select Committee to scrutinise all Bills and to report whether they contained insufficiently defined administrative powers or proposed any inappropriate delegation of legislative powers. I had in mind what happened in Australia. In 1981 a Senate standing committee was established for the scrutiny of Bills, and it has worked very well. Of course we have plenty of committees to study the past and to peer into the future, but I do not think that we pay enough attention to what is happening at the present time.
I shall not pursue that point but I would ask my noble friends on the Front Bench to have a look at the debate we had on 14th February and also to study the debate which was initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on 31st January last year, which went into greater detail about the high constitutional issues that he has raised. It was a debate on both the quantity, which is too large, and the quality of legislation.
I believe that the Government should comply with the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee that the use of the Henry VIII clause should be severely restricted, and it should always be explained and justified in the Memorandum to the Bill. It should also be remembered that the Donoughmore Committee was considering a very different situation from that which we face today. Heaven knows what it would have thought about a provision of this kind. It was considering a situation in which such a clause had been used only nine times since it was first introduced in a local government Act of 1888, which was limited to such matters as giving the Minister power by order to state the date of the coming into operation of the Act, and was normally limited to a period of 12 months from the coming into force of the Act. In the event, after the publication of the Donoughmore Report no such Henry VIII clause was introduced until after the Second World War. In other words, the Government found it perfectly

1033
possible between 1932 and 1939 to introduce complicated public health and local government legislation without feeling the necessity for provisions of this kind.
I do not want to go over all the arguments that have been advanced, not only today but on many previous occasions, but I should like to emphasise that I entirely agree with everything that has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, both on this and other occasions. We need to emphasise that we are debating or discussing not some obscure or trivial legal point but a matter which has considerable constitutional implications, with dangers that are very real.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Many years ago I was called upon to take my place on the Standing Committee which was considering the licensed premises (new towns) legislation. Ever since then I have been able to keep under very strict control, without undue effort, my admiration for our legislative procedures. I recognise that such procedures are a nuisance for the Government and I would have great admiration and respect for any administration that felt called upon to face the problem as a whole. I have rather less respect when a somewhat underhand method is resorted to of merely by-passing the inconveniences of procedures for which successive governments are responsible and of which they are the beneficiaries.
The constant use of the Henry VIII clause is unacceptable. I cannot think that any of your Lordships who voted for the previous amendment could possibly do other than support this one. I conclude my remarks by saying to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who enjoys—"enjoys" may be the wrong word—my entire sympathy in having to carry this particular burden, that I think he is allowing his cheerful good nature and optimism to get a little out of control if he thinks that the crumb of the affirmative resolution which he is offering to your Lordships will play a decisive role in the outcome of this discussion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Now that the Leader of the House is here I hope I may appeal to the Government to think again. I share the sympathies of my noble friend Lord Peyton with my noble friend Lord Henley, who has had to stand up most gallantly not only to numbers but to reason for most of the afternoon. I fully realise the limitations imposed upon a junior Minister, and his inability to go back on what he has said in his brief, but now that the Leader of the House is here it would be helpful if we could be given some encouragement and in particular if we could be given an explanation as to why this subsection was inserted in the Bill. It is not good enough just to say, "Oh well, it might come in handy one day". One can hardly expect Parliament to take that as a serious argument for serious legislation. There must have been some thought in some circles of government that, having got this Bill through and having produced a modest reduction in public expenditure, they could take another gulp and reduce the 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. or something similar. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is far too discreet to tell us that, but it
1034
is only fair to tell him the suspicion which arises in the minds of even the most guileless and naive of those such as myself—and of course I couple the noble Lord with myself in that.
Seriously, surely we could be told that the Government are going to have another look not only at this particular subsection, which I hope will be taken out of the Bill in a few moments, but at the whole structure of the Bill; surely they will realise that some of us at least who have been critical are not critical because we enjoy being critical of a government whom we fully support and for whom we have the greatest respect. The fact that we have therefore been driven to oppose the measure might perhaps be thought to suggest there is something wrong with it.
I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to get up and say that—if he did he would probably be the ex-Minister tomorrow morning—but I hope that either he or my noble friend the Leader of the House will be able to say that the Government are going to give serious and extra thought to the matter. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House knows, because I wrote to him over the Recess, I begged him and his colleagues in the Government to have another look at the whole of the Bill, the consequences of which seemed and still seem to be most unfortunate and particularly damaging to the Government at an important time. I therefore hope that we may be given some encouragement not merely on this subsection but on the Bill.
Lord Henley: I regret that I shall not be able to satisfy my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I thank him for his fairly soothing words after the violence from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, who accused me of violence in my conduct of the Bill through the House. I thought that my responses had been positively honeyed all the way through the Committee stage. In bringing forward concessions or making offers of concessions on some amendments I believed that I had been the opposite of violent. I shall not be able to help very much Members of the Committee who have spoken on this and on my own amendment to which I shall come in a moment.
As I told the House during Second Reading, and as my right honourable friends have said on more than one occasion in another place, the Government have at this time no plans to make further changes in the SSP reimbursement rate. Once again I wish to assure the House that the Government have no private commitment to make progressive reductions in the percentage rate in the future. That being the case, Members have asked: why have the provision at all? I can do no better—
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Will my noble friend give way? Does that mean that there are no present or future plans to change the 91 per cent.?
Lord Henley: I can give no commitment on the amendment. It will obviously be a matter that we shall have to consider and another place will have to consider when the Bill goes back to it.

1035
I was trying to reassure the Committee that we have no secret plans or commitment to make progressive reductions in the percentage rate in the future. I repeat what my right honourable friend said in another place on two occasions, because he quoted himself at Committee stage. The Secretary of State said:
"We have no plans to make further changes, but given the way that matters have been developing and the continuing need to examine priorities across the whole spectrum of social security, it seems sensible to have a provision that is capable of being changed… A large part of the social security system, including nearly all the rates of benefit —quite apart from the whole range of other rules—is in a form that does not lock it into primary legislation, so that changes can be made by secondary legislation. Governments of all complexions have acknowledged that that is a sensible way of dealing with social security matters". —[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/90; col. 915.]
It would be foolish to rule out for ever further consideration of this aspect. The inclusion of the power in Clause 1(2) of the Bill is a sensible arrangement which, as my right honourable friend said, does not lock future changes into primary legislation but enables them to be made by secondary legislation. It follows similar provisions in much of the social security system—for example, changes in the rates of benefits themselves are dealt with in this way.
My noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggested that it would be quite extraordinary to use secondary legislation to lay financial burdens on United Kingdom subjects. The truth is that there are very long-standing precedents. Perhaps I may give one example that is particularly relevant: the rates of contributions can and will be varied by secondary legislation and could be increased by the same means. I can say in passing that I am proud to be a member of a Government that has been able to reduce rates of contribution of both employees and employers over the years.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked why my amendment only offered the affirmative procedure if the rate should be reduced. He is quite correct; if we decided to increase above 80 or the 91 per cent. as it is now, that would not have to be done by affirmative resolution.
During Second Reading and this afternoon, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested that the inclusion of this provision in the Bill was contrary to the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee. Modern statutes confer power on the Executive to make delegated legislation which amends the statutes themselves. This is used, for example, to alter financial limits or to make alteration of details within a narrowly defined field. Or, as I have mentioned, to make alterations to national insurance rates.
However, as the Committee knows, the Government have noted the concern that has been expressed by noble Lords on this matter, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, both on Second Reading and this afternoon. In passing, perhaps I may say that I regret the lack of trust that has been expressed by many of the Government's supporters—my own noble friends—in the assurances
1036
that we have given. We have undertaken that should any order under this provision be introduced in the future which seeks to reduce the percentage rate currently applied, it should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That undertaking is fulfilled by my Amendment No. 8. My noble kinsman Lord Russell said that this was of no use whatever because, he alleged, we take no notice in this House of what is said.
Earl Russell: I beg my noble kinsman's pardon, I did not say it was of no use whatever. I said that I welcomed it, but that it was not enough.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Earl went on to say that the Government take no notice of what he and other noble Lords say when we debate affirmative resolution procedures in the House. I can assure him that we take full note of everything he says, as we shall of the points made by other noble Lords. The affirmative resolution procedure is a great concession.
However, the Government cannot agree to the complete removal of the subsection. It has been the practice of governments of all complexions—and I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, does not like that remark for which I make no apology—to proceed by secondary legislation once the main principle has been established. That makes for sensible and efficient government, particularly in the highly complex field of social security legislation.
In the light of what I have said and of the amendment in my own name which follows, which would prevent any further order being enacted without the approval of both Houses of Parliament, I hope that my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord when he is in the act of sitting down, but would he care to answer the question that I ventured to ask? How did it happen that the Bill was introduced subject only to the negative procedure?
Lord Henley: I think I can only apologise for that omission. As I stated, the Government have now brought forward an affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept it as being good enough and also accept my apology that it was not brought forward subject to the affirmative resolution in the first place.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may say that of course we have absolute trust in the present Government, but what about a future government?
Lord Henley: I am grateful for my noble friend's trust in the present Government. I am sure that the noble Lord knows that they will remain in power for a considerable number of years.
Lord Carter: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that at col. 917 of the Official Report in another place on 28th November 1990 his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Newton, said:
"I always seek to be open with the House about such matters and it is not inconceivable that this Government, or any future one, might make a judgment in particular

1037
circumstances that it was reasonable to propose a further change in the percentage without compensation, or whatever, through the national insurance system".
He referred to "this Government".
Lord Henley: We have never given any assurance that this Government would make no changes. We have just given the assurance that we have no plans at the moment. Circumstances can change. While this Government is in power—which it will be for many years—in changed circumstances obviously different decisions may have to be made.
Earl Russell: I am deeply grateful for the support I have received from every quarter of the Committee. It is a good day when I can agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. One matter with which I agree was when he expressed sympathy for my noble kinsman the Minister who has had a difficult day. He stood at the burning Dispatch Box, whence all but he had fled. I admire the courage with which he did so. I shall take up two points.
My noble kinsman denied the fact that people take no notice of our debates. I deduce that from, among other things, the presence of the clause in the Bill. Had they taken notice of our debates, it would not have been there. I agree with my noble kinsman that we cannot for ever rule out the possibility of changing the rates of reimbursement for statutory sick pay. There is a procedure for doing that. It is called a Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
6.50 p m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 71.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Galpern, L.

Addingion, L.

Gisborough, L.

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Auckland, L.

Grantchester, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Beloff, L.

Haig, E.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hertford, M.

Bottomley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hooson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hughes, L.

Carter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Cobbold, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kirkhill, L.

David, B.

Lawrence, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Donoughue, L.

Listowel, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Longford, E.

Ennals. L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McNair, L.

Ezra, L.

Marsh, L.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Gainford, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Mayhew, L.

1038

Meston, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Seear, B.

Milverton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Monson, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Mottistone, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Nicol, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Oram, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Walston, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rea, L.

Whaddon, L.

Richard, L.

White, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Wilberforce, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rochester, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bauer, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Blake, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Borthwick, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Butterworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chesham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Colwyn, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Selborne, E.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Flather, B.

Stockton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Suffield, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Waddington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Killearn, L.

Windlesham, L.

Long, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.58 p.m.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: We change the subject slightly. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 which are consequential upon Amendment No. 9. The amendment removes that part of the Bill which takes away from employers the additional amount that they receive to compensate them for paying national insurance contributions on SSP. At present

1039
employers are reimbursed an additional 7 per cent. on any SSP that they pay. That reflects the average additional cost borne by employers.
SSP is a state welfare benefit, not pay, and employers should not therefore have to pay national insurance contributions on it. However, one of the unintentional side effects of employers administering SSP was that employers had to pay national insurance on the higher rate of SSP and their employment costs were thus increased. That situation was recognised and alleviated when, in 1985, the Government introduced the additional compensation.
I should also like to remind my noble friends on the Front Bench that the arrangement was introduced at the same time as Ministers extended employers' responsibility for administering the scheme from eight to 28 weeks. It was intended partly—as set out in the DHSS discussion paper published in December 1984 —as a
"recognition of the extra work for employers as a result of the SSP changes".
The Government are now proposing to withdraw that provision arguing, first, that employers receive compensation for national insurance payments when national insurance may not have been paid and, secondly, that around 25 per cent. of the additional compensation is unclaimed. That is a fact to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding referred repeatedly in the course of earlier amendments. Neither of those arguments holds water. Compensation is based on the average additional payment paid by employers as a whole. That was the option favoured by Ministers in 1985 and then, as now, it was clear that under that system certain employers would receive more in compensation than they had paid, but that some companies would not receive full compensation.
That method was accepted by the CBI in the interests of administrative simplicity, but employers' acceptance was conditional on the percentage remaining at an acceptable level and on the understanding that the system would not be arbitrarily changed. I emphasise the word "arbitrarily" in view of the way in which this Bill has been handled.
The Government's second argument, that because 25 per cent. of the available compensation is unclaimed all compensation should be withdrawn, seems at best illogical. It is surely not one which the Government would wish to see applied to other areas. The fact that so much compensation remains unclaimed clearly indicates that, despite the Government's assurances, and indeed considerable efforts, the SSP scheme is not as simple to understand and administer as Ministers claim. I expect that the majority of unclaimed compensation belongs to the smaller companies which find it hardest to get to grips with the scheme.
Those are the reasons for my amendments. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give them serious consideration. If he cannot undertake to accept my amendment as it stands perhaps he will say
1040
that he will take it away and think about it so that we might come back to the matter at Report. In view of the general unpopularity of the Bill, as shown by the last two Divisions, and the need for the Government to be seen by industry to be listening to what it has to say and recognising that it has real problems, and in particular financial problems, perhaps the Government may be able to accept the amendment more readily now than they could when they first introduced the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Again, I do so with employees in mind. It is not just a question of employers having difficulty with a scheme which, as the noble Lord said, is not as simple as the Government maintain. The evidence indicates that a number of small employers in particular find the provisions extremely complicated. That is no doubt why the take-up of the rebate is so low.
When there are administratively complex issues to be handled employees are automatically affected. That is particularly so if those issues are perceived by employers to add to their administrative costs. As I said in relation to a previous amendment, that makes it much more difficult for unions and employees who are represented to negotiate reasonable occupational sick pay schemes where there are none. It also makes it more difficult to negotiate improved schemes because employers simply do not wish to add to their costs.
For those reasons, and in the light of the fact that the Bill is clearly most unpopular on all sides of the House, I ask the Government to give careful consideration to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who has covered the issues very comprehensively. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Earl Russell: I rise only to say very briefly that the Liberal Democrats warmly support the amendment. I agree both with what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said and with what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said. The Bill will have an adverse effect on employment. An almost bankrupt employer is often a bad employer. There are already difficulties in relation to the payment of statutory sick pay. The Bill will not make the situation any better.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I hope very much that the Government will think hard about the amendment. They have had considerable food for thought today and if they do not think hard about it I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will go for the hat trick.
Lord Henley: As my noble kinsman said, the Government have had considerable food for thought today. I cannot offer to take the amendment away and think about the matter with any real hope that the Government will change their mind on the matter. However, I hope that in the light of the defeat that my noble friend inflicted on the Government earlier he

1041
will not feel it necessary to press this amendment, bearing in mind that the Government will obviously have to consider their position to some extent.
I should like to explain briefly why we feel that we cannot accept the amendment. As my noble friend explained, the amendment and the associated amendments to the schedule would remove from the Bill the provision which abolishes the additional amount which employers can recover as compensation for the national insurance contributions payable on SSP. The level of compensation is calculated actuar ly each year and represents the estimated total of the employers' contributions payable on both SSP and SMP as a percentage of total SSP/SMP payments. For 1990–91 the rate was fixed at 7 per cent. As my noble friend will know, that means that employers are currently able to recover from their national insurance contributions payable to the Inland Revenue a sum equivalent to 107 per cent. of the SSP they have paid out.
As I have said, that additional amount was intended to compensate employers for the cost of national insurance contributions they pay on SSP. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said earlier, it has been of only limited success despite widespread publicity. As much as a quarter of the compensation available is never claimed by employers. Even when it is claimed it does; not always fulfil its original purpose. In the interests of simplicity of operation by employers it is available on all SSP paid by employers even where the total amount of SSP payable is below the lower earnings limit and thus does not attract national insurance contribution liability. That is obviously highly unsatisfactory. Moreover, it makes little sense to retain the 7 per cent. compensation rate for SSP once we move from 100 per cent. reimbursement.
My noble friend's amendment would also have financial implications. As the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum sets out, the ending of the compensation rate will increase income to the National Insurance Fund by £71 million in 1991–92, rising to £75 million and £78 million in the succeeding two years.
For those reasons I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am disappointed that my noble friend did not feel that he could be a little more accommodating. However, I do not believe that this is an appropriate occasion to return to the charge because we could well argue the matter more fully having had the opportunity to read my noble friend's arguments, which I do not think tell us very much more than we already know. We may be able to return to the charge at Report. I shall reserve the right to come back if necessary with exactly the same amendment.
It is sad that the Government are not thinking as they were in the early 1980s when they introduced the scheme. I was involved in a personnel capacity at the time. Nor did they give the same thought to the matter as they obviously did in 1985 when they made the adjustments to which I referred. They seem to have
1042
gone hard on and become unhelpful to industry in the course of the last year. I do not think that is wise of the Government, partly because of the economic situation but also because they really ought to he friends with industry for all kinds of reasons, which I would have thought would be obvious to them.
Having said all that, I reserve the right to come back and take leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert:
(6) In section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989 (recovery of sums equivalent to benefit from compensation payments) in the definition of "benefit" in subsection (3), the words "subject to regulations under subsection (3A) below" shall be inserted after the word "and", and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(3A) If statutory sick pay is prescribed as a relevant benefit, the amount of that benefit for the purposes of this section shall be a reduced amount determined in accordance with regulations by reference to the percentage from time to time specified in section 9(1) (a) of the 1982 Act (percentage of statutory sick pay recoverable by employers by deduction from contributions)."").
The noble Lord said: In moving Government Amendment No. 10 I will also be speaking to Amendment No. 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which deals with much the same point.
Amendment No. 10 is straightforward and arises from the interaction of the provisions in this Bill with the recoupment provisions embodied in Section 22 of the 1989 Act. Many noble Lords will remember that Act and the discussion on it during the progress of the 1990 Act. Section 22 of the 1989 Act provides for the whole of certain prescribed benefits, including statutory sick pay, to be deducted from compensation for personal injury. The sum deducted is paid over to the Department of Social Security. This is not the occasion to rehearse the arguments which led the Government to enact the recoupment provisions, but an underlying notion is that the DSS should get back from compensation what it has paid out. Having made that point, the reasons for this amendment become apparent. A reduction of SSP funding from 100 to 80 per cent., or 91 per cent., needs to be reflected in the recoupment arrangements. That was brought out during the debate in another place and the point was acknowledged by my right honourable friend the Minister of State who undertook to consider the precise implications of the changes for recoupment. At the time, the department's legal advice was that any necessary change could be incorporated by way of an amendment to regulations using the powers in this Bill. However, that earlier opinion is now subject to some doubt and we consider it to be prudent to remove that doubt by ensuring that there is a specific power in Section 22 of the 1989 Act to amend regulations. That is the nub of the amendment.
The list of benefits covered by the recoupment scheme is contained in the Social Security (Recoupment) Regulations 1990 and we consider that that is the place in which to set out any change in the

1043
amount of SSP being recouped. We shall be amending those regulations to provide that recoupment of SSP is on a par with the proportion of government funding.
From what I have said it will be abundantly clear that the Government fully accept the spirit of Amendment No. 11. However, as I explained, we propose to amend regulations to spell out the precise changes for recoupment associated with this Bill. I hope that with that assurance, not only of our intention but of the provision contained in our amendment, the noble Baroness, or whoever is dealing with it, and my noble kinsman will feel able not to move their amendment.
The reasons for Amendment No. 10 are clear and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. He has given the assurance we are seeking—that there is no need for Amendment No. 11 because it is covered by Government Amendment No. 10.
Earl Russell: I welcome the amendment. I thank my noble kinsman warmly for the letter he sent to me explaining the amendment in detail. I am glad we have it, and I thank him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should like to make one comment. I very much regret that two amendments have been carried by the House against the Government, particularly after the Government treated my own amendment—the first amendment on the Marshalled List—with such an open mind and with an undertaking to come back.
There is a lesson to be learnt. I base that opinion on previous experience to which I referred earlier. If one is going to change the arrangements which affect employers paying their employees and to make alterations which will be to the disadvantage of some and to the advantage of others, there is enormous benefit in consulting them beforehand. I understand the reasons why it is said that that was not possible in this case; namely, that this was a deal negotiated with the Chief Secretary as part of an overall rearrangement of priorities in the social security budget.
What seems to be happening is that the public expenditure Statement is beginning to acquire some of the characteristics of the Budget. These things are all done quietly behind locked doors. I hope that the amount of leaking to the press of the discussions which go on will never be repeated for the Budget. It is said that somehow it is impossible for Ministers to consult on a proposal on which they are engaged in discussions with the Treasury until they have actually done the deal. I am not sure that that is necessarily right. I understand that the particular proposal was not made by the Treasury but by the Department of
1044
Social Security and by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I do not see why he could not have said: "Here is something I am prepared to consider, but I must have time to discuss it". It could be done fairly quickly. After all, the public expenditure rounds start with the position papers and previous programmes in May. The serious negotiations do not actually get under way until later; some in July but most in September and then intensively in October. It is quite a long period. If there is to be a change in social security arrangements involving some hundreds of millions of pounds and affecting many millions of employers, and if there is a lesson to be learnt from today's proceedings, it seems to me that it would have been much better to have had full consultation even if that did to some extent interrupt the normal process whereby the public expenditure round was conducted.
I feel a bit churlish in making this point because my own amendment was accepted in essence, but what we have seen is the product of not doing that and of leaving very little time for discussion. The Government should have gone to the employers' organisations and said, "We have got to find £250 million of public expenditure and we want to do it in the easiest and best way of dealing with statutory sick pay, national insurance contributions, or whatever it might be. How can we do this with the minimum of hassle, recognising that there will be some pain and grief to be borne?" If they had done that, I believe there would have been a better response from the CBI, and others, than we have had simply because this was been bounced onto them with very little warning and time for serious negotiation before the Bill came before Parliament. I think that aspect needs to be looked at.
I apologise if I sound unduly censorious but clearly my noble friend, as parliamentary Under-Secretary, does not have these matters firmly within his control; although I hope he will allow me to say that he has batted remarkably effectively today. If I may change the metaphor, I think he has been dealt a difficult hand and in part it has been of the Government's own making.
Lord Henley: I thank my noble friend for those comments. Naturally he would not expect me to comment on them or reply in any detail. My right honourable friend will be aware of what he says and I am sure will take note of it as my noble friend speaks with great experience of these matters.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Extent: payments condition
.The provisions of this Act, insofar as they amend section 9 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 (recovery by employers of amounts paid by way of statutory sick pay), shall only have effect to the extent of the amount paid by an employer in respect of statutory sick pay paid to an employee during the first three weeks.").
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this amendment or to move Amendment No. 13. I need to work out the effects that the amendments that we carried earlier today would have on these proposed

1045
amendments. I should like the chance to consider them and take advice. I reserve the right to bring back the amendments at Report stage.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Citation, commencement, financial provision and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Henley: I do not know whether it is quite correct to delay proceedings in this manner for a moment or two to allow those who are to conduct the next business time to reach the Chamber. No doubt Members of the Committee would like to have the details of Clause 3 explained to them to a somewhat greater extent.
Like its predecessor clause, which was Clause 2 and which I did not have time to discuss, this clause contains only consequential changes which a quick perusal of almost any social security Bill will show are a regular it feature of social security legislation.
Subsection (1) deals with the citation of the Bill. Subsection (2) provides for different parts of the Bill to come in at different times and for different purposes. I beg to move that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 agreed to.
In the Schedule:
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]
7.24 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Maintenance orders in the High Court and county courts: means of payment, attachment of earnings and revocation, variation, etc.]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("(6) In any case where the court proposes to exercise its power under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above it shall, when making an order to that effect, specify the period of time during which the debtor shall be deemed to have an opportunity of opening an account in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6A) below.
(6A) In any case where—

(a) the court proposes to exercise its power under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above, and

(b) having given the debtor an opportunity of opening an account from which payments under the order may be made in accordance with the method of payment proposed to be ordered under that paragraph, the court is satisfied that the debtor has failed without reasonable excuse to open such an account during the period of time provided for so doing in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) above,

the court in exercising its power under that paragraph may order that the debtor opens such an account.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first of all I should like to say how sorry I am that I am not facing across this Dispatch Box the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I gather that his absence is owing to the fact that he has been in hospital and is recovering from an operation. On behalf of all of us on these Benches perhaps I may say how much we hope that he will soon make a complete and happy recovery. I look forward to welcoming him back in his place. I notice that meanwhile he has been replaced at short notice and in quick time by a noble Lord who is of equal height and equal stature though perhaps not of equal build.
In moving this amendment I should like to link with it Amendment No. 6 which is its mirror image and concerned also with the question of defining opportunity within the Bill. The effect of the present amendment would be that the court would be able to specify the period of time during which the debtor will have an opportunity to open an account from which payments may be made. If the debtor fails to open an account during the time specified by the court, then the court will be able to order him to do so.
Your Lordships may remember that at Committee stage I tabled an amendment which sought to provide that if a debtor had not opened an account within 14 days of the hearing he would have been deemed not to have taken up his opportunity to do so. The court would then have been able to order him to open an account. That amendment was designed to ensure that the court could proceed to make an order forcing the debtor to open an account with the minimum of delay. Delay lies at the centre of this amendment. Delay all too frequently can be the debtor's device to avoid responsibility and delay is always the creditor's enemy.
The earlier amendment also sought to prevent potential litigation over the meaning of the word "opportunity". Your Lordships may recall that although they expressed sympathy for the proposed amendment, the Government rejected it on the basis that it failed to take account of the circumstances of each case and would amount to a fetter on the court's discretion. On 13th December last the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said:
"I believe the provisions of Amendment No. 5 would impose an unnecessary and possibly undesirable timetable on the exercise of the court's discretion".
He went on to say:
"While we sympathise with the aim of the amendment, we believe that the better course would be not to attempt to fetter the discretion of the court to decide for itself how long to adjourn proceedings in order to allow a debtor to take steps to open an account".—[Official Report, 13/12/90; col. 590.]
The current amendment again seeks to provide a period of time during which the debtor shall be deemed to have an opportunity to open an account. However it differs from the amendment which I originally tabled as it leaves to the court the decision over the period of time during which the debtor shall have an opportunity to open an account. That will mean that, as before, the court will if necessary be able to proceed to make an order that the debtor open an account with the minimum of delay. But there will be the added advantage that the system will be more

1047
flexible and the court will be able to come to a decision on the time to be allowed for a debtor to open an account, having taken account of all the circumstances of each case and of the representations made to the court by the parties. The court will not be bound to give the debtor the opportunity of opening a bank account within the period of 14 days following the hearing but will be able to decide for itself for how long it considers that a debtor should have the opportunity to open an account. I beg to move.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I must apologise to the House first of all for not being in my place at Committee stage and secondly for arriving rather late this evening. I feel strongly about subsection (6A) (a). It is absolutely wrong for it to be possible for a court of any jurisdiction to be able by law to force a person to open a bank account. It is wrong in principle. It is wrong also in that it takes away the individual's freedom, which all of us hold dear.
Whether or not the reasoning behind the proposal is right is immaterial to me. I do not believe that anybody should be forced to do something that does not in any way make sense. For instance, it is possible, and it was done by my grandson at the age of 10, to open a bank account with £1. A bank manager will accept that amount of money when a client opens an account. When a debtor is told by a court that he must pay maintenance to his ex-wife through a bank account he will deposit only £1. In my view there is no method of forcing him to deposit any more money.
Had I been present in Committee I should have tried to persuade your Lordships to throw out Clause 1(6) (a). I feel so strongly that this is not the way to get a debtor to pay maintenance to his wife that I had to come to the House this evening to say so. I have had 30 years' experience of dealing with people in such difficulties. As was said by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in Committee, the Bill allows the debtor to pay maintenance to the creditor in four different ways, but surely this is not one of them. I know that it is now too late to ask your Lordships to delete the subsection but I hope that when the Bill comes before the other place that will be done.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for his kind words of welcome and for his good wishes to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for a speedy recovery from the effect of his operation. My noble friend will be grateful for those comments. I can assure the House that he is making good progress after a successful operation. These amendments are similar to two amendments which the noble Lord moved during Committee and with which the Government expressed some sympathy. The Government could not accept them because it was feared that to do so would impose an unnecessary and potentially undesirable timetable on the exercise of the court's discretion.
These amendments do not impose any particular time period. However I assure the House that they are
1048
unnecessary. If a maintenance debtor has an account out of which standing orders can be made the court may order payments to be made by that method to begin on a certain date. If the maintenance debtor does not have such an account the court which is considering ordering that payments be made by standing order will adjourn the case until another date which will be fixed by the court at the time of the adjournment. The adjournment period in this instance is to give the debtor an opportunity to open an account. The matter must return to the court at the end of the adjournment in order for the method of payment to be decided. The court, therefore, under its usual adjournment procedures automatically specifies a period during which the maintenance debtor must open an account.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. I have great sympathy with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, after 30 years' experience in these matters. I have the greatest respect for her because no one has been more concerned with such issues than she.
I agree that no one should be forced to do anything which does not make sense. In Committee I stressed the problem of someone opening a bank account and refusing to deposit funds into it. However, the Government set their face against that point. I hope that they will now pay heed to the noble Baroness as well as to me and will listen to the wisdom of her words.
I remain of the belief that it would be better if the requirement were specified and spelt out. The date of an adjournment is frequently decided as being a matter for the court's convenience rather than anyone else's. My proposed amendment would helpfully direct the court's consideration to the special interests of the debtor and, even more, of the creditor. Typically, it is the creditor who must buy the groceries and pay the bills week by week. The creditor does not have the luxury of being able to adjourn during pleasure payment to the girl at the supermarket checkout. However, I perceive that the Government present a flinty bosom to my best arguments and that even though I too speak with the tongues of men and of angels I shall not convince the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 2, after ("question") insert ("having (if practicable) given every interested party an opportunity to make representations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, tabled two amendments during the Committee stage to ensure that all interested parties were aware of the proceedings. The requirement that a court must have regard to any representations made by the debtor, the creditor and the applicant, if different from the creditor, as to the method of payment is worthless is one or more of those parties is unaware of the proceedings.
The Government had considerable sympathy with the noble Lord's amendments, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said. Accordingly, we asked to consider the matter further and we have now come forward with these amendments. They are drafted along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Their effect is to impose an obligation on a court to give notice to all the parties in order that they may make representations on the method of payment.
The noble Lord has also tabled similar amendments which have the same purpose. The Government prefer the version drafted by parliamentary counsel for two reasons. First, the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 1 refers to an "application". The higher courts may, of course, act on their own motion and may not have an application before them. Therefore, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord to Clause 1 is inaccurate. Secondly, the word "application" does not actually appear in the paragraphs which are to be amended and, therefore, the reader must search to find the word "application" earlier in the clauses. Parliamentary counsel in his draft has agreed with the principle expressed in the noble Lord's amendments but has drafted amendments which we consider are more appropriate in the context in which they are situated. The Government have also thought it best to include in the amendments the proviso "if practicable"; otherwise we may be requiring a court to do the impossible.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will agree that the amendment fulfils the need that he recognised.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. The provision is vitally important for past and future family relationships. Anyone connected with a case under consideration should have an opportunity to speak. I prefer the Government's amendment because it includes the words 'if applicable". It may be that some of the parties concerned are abroad or in hospital and, therefore, unable to attend. It is vitally important that everyone concerned in a case should be heard and, therefore, I support the Government's amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have no objection to the purport of these amendments. Indeed, I venture to applaud them. My only cavil is that I do not believe that they are necessary. Before taking any action which might adversely affect a party or anyone who might be before it, every court should, so far as practicable, give notice to that party and hear any representations.
I expect that my legal pronunciation of Latin will offend your Lordships but there is a very fundamental principle of law, indeed it is a principle of natural justice—audi alteram partem (hear the other party). I expect 1 hat the noble Lord will say that that may be so but there is no harm in writing it down and that it is better to be safe than sorry. If he says that—and I suspect that that will be echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris—I have nothing more to say. As I say, it seems to me that every court should do that and I hope that it would do so of its own motion.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord and I am encouraged by the Government's attitude towards this necessary and important concept of notification. On this side of the House we welcome these amendments which honour fully the assurance given in Committee that the Government would look carefully at the points which we raised.
I shall say what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said I would say; namely, that it is better that those matters should be written into the Bill. There remains only one tiny reservation which concerns the words "(if practicable)". Perhaps the noble Lord could expand on that phrase. I hope that he can assure me that that phrase should not be interpreted as an invitation to any of the parties concerned to cause any further delay. If that assurance can be given, I do not wish to move Amendments Nos. 3 or 8.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made a point with which have some sympathy; namely, that these amendments are not necessary. However, he correctly anticipated the reason that we should like to see them written into the Bill. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that it is better to be safe than sorry.
As regards the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that the words "(if practicable)" should not constitute an invitation to the parties to cause any unnecessary delay, it is not our intention that that should be the consequence.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("interested") and insert ("such").
The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, objected in Committee to amendments similar to these amendments because he said that they were unnecessary. In the light of the noble and learned Lord's objection, my noble friend Lord Ferrers withdrew those amendments in order to have another look at them.
Parliamentary counsel has been able to improve the drafting of the amendments but we still believe that they are necessary to rectify a problem with the Bill. As it presently stands, the wording of the Bill is adequate for the first application for maintenance but does not work so well for subsequent applications. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill's provisions must apply also to applications for variation or enforcement. For that reason we believe it is more accurate to use the words "person who applied" than the word "applicant" in Clauses 1 and 2. The remaining four amendments are consequential.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, the noble Earl and the draftsman for reconsidering this matter. As the noble Lord knows, I still believe that the original draft was adequate. Indeed, I am borne out in that by the fact

1051
that one of the amendments alters the same wording as in the draft in the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act of a few years ago.
In two periods of my life I have worked very closely with parliamentary counsel and I knew them all. I no longer have that privilege but it is perfectly obvious from scrutiny of this Bill that counsel in charge of it has an extremely acute mind, high intelligence and, indeed, an ear for language. However, I believe that he has gone too far in this case.
The word "applicant" refers not only, as its etymology might suggest, to someone who is at present applying. Many years ago I was an applicant for admission to the Bar. I am now an applicant to your Lordships' indulgence. In a very short time I hope to be an applicant for a taxi to take me home. Therefore, I do not quarrel with this. I asked that the matter should be considered and I am most grateful that that has been done. Having made my point, I must defer to the draftsman, if he prefers this wording. I merely thank the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("applicant") and insert ("person who applied").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Orders for periodical payment in magistrates' courts: means of payment]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 33, after ("court") insert ("having (if practicable) given them an opportunity to make representations").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("applicant") and insert ("person who applied").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 11, leave out ("applicant for the") and insert ("person who applied for the maintenance").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement of sums adjudged to be paid
. Where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a magistrates' court and the court decides to issue a warrant of distress under section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the purpose of levying the sum there shall not be taken under the warrant any of that person's goods which are—
1052

(a) such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to that person for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation; and

(b) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of that person and his family.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the baleful subject of bailiffs. Just as park-keepers are disliked by small boys and traffic wardens are seldom popular with motorists, so bailiffs are not the flavour of the month with many of those to whom this Bill will apply. They are necessary, but there are few that love them. It is all the more important therefore that their powers should be clearly understood and their activities disciplined and controlled.
The effect of the amendment will be to bring private bailiffs into line with the county court bailiffs. In redrafting it after the Committee stage I took into account what was said by the noble Earl at Committee stage regarding the National Consumer Council report and the work of the Home Office group set up specifically to consider such matters. That is why the amendment I am presenting today is a much narrower amendment. It seeks to implement the provisions introduced into the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which stipulates the specific goods which may not be seized under a warrant of execution by bailiffs working for the county courts. A similar provision operates for sheriffs in Scotland under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. As the provision was introduced by the Government for county court bailiffs in England and Wales, and sheriffs in Scotland, there seems to be no justification for private bailiffs in England and Wales not also operating under those restrictions.
The matter is important because offences do occur. I refer noble Lords to a case reported in The Times as recently as Friday, 4th January 1991, in the following terms:
"A community charge defaulter who had goods removed from his home by bailiffs last September after he failed to pay the tax won a court appeal yesterday against the London borough of Wandsworth for wrongful seizure of goods".
On that occasion the stipendiary magistrate said,
"that he was not satisfied that the bailiffs had done enough to find out who owned the goods".
He added,
"that it was vital that bailiffs found out whose property they were taking when seizing goods to enforce payment of the community charge".
It must needs be that offences occur, and the same will unquestionably apply to maintenance orders. That is why the amendment is not only required, but urgently required. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the amendment is a general provision which does not relate specifically to maintenance collection and enforcement, which is the subject of the Bill. I understand the concern behind the amendment, as did my noble friend Lord Ferrers when the noble Lord, Lord Morris, moved a more comprehensive amendment at Committee stage. We understand the problems and distress that occur when

1053
bailiffs are involved. As the noble Lord said, it is indeed a baleful subject. We are giving the report of the National Consumer Council on private bailiffs careful consideration. However, we feel that we must resist the amendment.
The amendment sets out very detailed procedural rules. As mentioned during the Committee stage, the Home Office is presently consulting the magistrates' courts service with a view to bringing the magistrates' courts rules, specifying which goods may be distrained, into line with the rules governing distress orders by the higher courts. I would not wish to pre-empt that consultation by agreeing to this amendment.
It is correct that the wording of this amendment appears in Section 15 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which is primary legislation. But that is only because the procedures in the higher courts were already governed by primary legislation—the Supreme Court Act 1981 and the County Courts Act 1984—and it was necessary to amend those statutes. The equivalent provisions for magistrates' courts are contained in Rule 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981, and it is this secondary legislation which will need to be amended. The Government consider that it is best that these procedural matters relating to distraint in the magistrates' court are dealt with in secondary rather than primary legislation so that we can adjust them as circumstances require. In the light of that explanation I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I see that I have yet again failed to convince the noble Lord of the merits of my argument and bring him round to my point of view. Perhaps I may ask him to reassure me on two points. The first concerns the timetable of the Home Office group. Is there any reason to believe that that group is treating the question as a matter of considerable urgency? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say something a little more precise than that the group will report as soon as possible or in due course. It is a matter on which we have considerably strong feelings, and I would welcome an assurance that the Home Office group is proceeding with its task as briskly as may be.
Secondly, can the noble Lord assure me that that group will consult widely? Has it consulted, or does it plan to consult, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux? That has without question unrivalled experience of the problems which arise almost daily in the matter of bailiffs and the way they work. I shall be grateful if the Minister will reassure me on those two points.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord and the House that the Home Office is at present consulting interested bodies, including the magistrates' courts' representative bodies. We are consulting widely on the harmonisation of magistrates' courts' rules with the seizure regime applying to the orders of the civil courts. Ministers will aim to take decisions in the light of responses they receive by the summer. It is not an entirely straightforward matter. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I could not ask for more. I am grateful for that assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Revocation, variation, etc. of orders for periodical payment in magistrates' courts: general]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 44, leave out ("applicant") and insert ("person who applied").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to maintenance orders registered in or confirmed by magistrates' courts or registered in the High Court]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 27, line 3, leave out ("in court which made it") and insert ("by registering court").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a tidying-up amendment to Schedule 1. It is necessary because the words in brackets in that paragraph are intended to be a summary of what is said in Section 34 of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972. The present drafting does not achieve that. This amendment will ensure that the paragraph gives an accurate summary of that section. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 30, line 12, after ("Act)") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 30, line 13, at end insert ("and
(b) for the words " "the applicant for the order" " there shall be substituted " "the person who applied for the maintenance order" " ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
In the title:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 16:
Line 14, leave out ("to amend section 10 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this was a matter which I raised in Committee in relation to the title. It struck me in passing that it was extremely odd, when the schedule of minor and consequential amendments contained 10 paragraphs, to have taken only the last paragraph, paragraph 10, and reflected that in the title. It also struck me as odd that it should be thought proper in the title to refer at all to matters of minor and consequential amendment. There was then the general background that if words are unnecessary we do not want them in a statute.
I tabled the amendment because of the timetable. I wrote to the noble Earl to say that if the Government wanted to introduce their own amendment I should withdraw mine. I then received a message from the Public Bill Office that it thought the amendment was necessary. That gave me the opportunity of looking further into the matter.
I shall not press the amendment to a Division. But I ask that it be considered both by the noble Lord's department and by parliamentary counsel. The point is that the Long Title in this form serves no purpose at all; it is useless juridically and parliamentarily. A Long Title can be useful, but not one of this kind. I know what is in the mind of the draftsman. The present practice is that everything of major importance in the Bill must be reflected in the Title. In so far as he has followed that, he is following existing and current practice, which is approved in the Public Bill Office as well.
It strikes me as very odd if that is carried as far as a minor and consequential amendment. I believe that the draftsman is right in saying that this is not consequential, but it is minor or else it should not appear in that schedule.
What I wish to submit to your Lordships for consideration is what is the real purpose of the Long Title. The textbooks, including Erskine May, are unanimous on this in the modern practice in law. The Long Title is part of the statute and available for interpretation. It does not operate to contradict the enacting words of the main clauses. That of course includes the schedules, which are just as much part of the statute as the main clauses.
One used to be told by teachers of constitutional law the undoubtedly apocryphal story of a private Act of Parliament in which the town clerk had interpolated into an obscure schedule a clause divorcing his wife. I do not think that anyone ever believed that. However, it points to this conclusion. Parliament very much leaves the schedule of minor and consequential amendments to the draftsman, and I think that he should consider—perhaps I can write to him about it—one or two of the provisions in the schedule which seem neither minor nor consequential. Also, as I read it, the Long Title does not reflect the provision in the main clause, Clause 5, amending the Children Act.
However, that is not my point. My point is this. Although the Long Title cannot contradict the words of the main clauses and schedules—the enacting words —it is available in case of any doubt as to their meaning. Craies on Statute Law cites a number of cases where the Long Title was made a resource for resolving a contradiction.
A Long Title in this form can be of no service at all. It is not needed as a label because it does not purport to be such. The Short Title is the label. Nor is it a table of contents, which appear immediately before the Bill under "Arrangement of Clauses". That appears in each print of the Bill and in front of the Act of Parliament when it is printed as a separate Act. It also
1056
appears as an index in the statute book when the Act is printed there. Therefore, one does not need the Long Title as a recital of what is in the Act or the Bill.
What one needs it for is to tell one what is the object of the measure so that, if there is some ambiguity or conflict as to interpretation, the court can look at the Long Title to resolve it. I do not hold this out in any way as a model of drafting, but a Long Title in this form for this Bill would be far more useful: "An Act to secure more effectively the payment of maintenance and certain periodical payments and the enforcement of orders for maintenance of certain periodical payments and for connected purposes". That would be of some use to the court in an emergency. As I say, the present Long Title is no use at all.
Having said that, I go back to what I said originally. What the draftsman has done is entirely in accordance with contemporary practice. I ask though that it should be re-examined if any weight is given to what I have just said. Perhaps the noble Lord can have it considered by officials and perhaps the draftsman could take it to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, who could take it to the Legislation Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord raised this point during Committee stage. He is an advocate of concise drafting which excludes all unnecessary words. In this I fully support him. The current practice is for the Long Title of a Bill to reflect everything contained in the Bill. I should like also to have recourse to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice (21st Edition), where it states at page 441:
"The long title sets out in general terms the purposes of the bill, and should cover everything in the bill".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord has quite rightly added those last words, which reflect the current practice. But the words immediately before reflect the purposes of the Bill. It was that that I tried to emphasise.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I take the noble and learned Lord's point. Perhaps he will allow me to proceed a little further. The specific words referring to Section 10 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 are required in the Long Title as the amendment to that section in the Bill, I am given to understand, is not directly covered by the phrase "and for connected purposes" which ends the Bill's Long Title.
The amendment to Section 10 made in the Bill will enable rules of court to be made to ensure consistency between procedures under the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 and procedures which will be introduced with the implementation of the Children Act 1989. Although this amendment to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 embraces maintenance proceedings, it goes slightly wider than the manner in which maintenance should be paid, which is the subject of our Bill, and therefore requires specific mention in the Long Title even though the amendment to the 1990 Act being made by this Bill is only a minor amendment. That is our explanation.

1057
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his assurance that he will not press his amendment even though he may not be convinced by what I have said, although of course I hope he is.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it remains for me to thank the Minister and the draftsman for having given this matter consideration. The opposing arguments are now quite clear. All I can ask is that the matter should be considered on general principles. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Indoor/Outdoor Wheelchair Provision
8.10 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide an indoor/outdoor wheelchair for the most severely disabled in the light of the findings of the Disablement Services Authority.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is some relief that on this third attempt we are at last able to debate an issue which is so important to some of the less fortunate members of the community. I have to confess that since the last attempt to ask this Unstarred Question I have succeeded in completely mislaying my notes and now have some slight understanding of how Carlyle must have felt. I should like to thank those noble Lords who have put down their names to speak. Perhaps I may be forgiven for expressing my particular pleasure that the list includes the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
The Disablement Services Authority—the DSA—was set up in July 1987 to take over the artificial limb and appliances service run by the DHSS and to integrate the service into the NHS this year. A major responsibility of the DSA is to meet, in the jargon, the short-range mobility needs of people of all ages who have serious and permanent difficulties in walking. In that role it provides a wide variety of wheelchair. The great majority are non-powered, but last year there were nearly 8,500 powered chairs in issue, most for use indoors but some for use outdoors, alas of a rather clumsy and unattractive construction and capable of being used only by an attendant. It is not always the case that a suitable attendant is available. It was the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which highlighted the fact that there was a serious gap in the provision of wheelchairs by the DSA in that there was no powered wheelchair usable both indoors and outdoors, and that as a result a number of people were s suffering an avoidable lack of mobility or were having to resort to the private sector to buy a chair which they could ill afford.
By some juggling of finances, the DSA succeeded in mounting a pilot scheme in 1989, based on Newcastle and Manchester, involving the issue of some 400 chairs, made by three manufacturers, to people who met certain fairly strict requirements. For example, the individuals had to satisfy the conditions for
1058
mobility allowance; they had to be under 65; they had to be unable to walk or self-propel effectively within their home; and they had to meet the eyesight standard required for a car driving licence. I have before me a careful study of the outcome of that pilot scheme, including the answers to a questionnaire sent in by most of those who took part. It is not surprising that the results fully confirmed that the independence allowed by the use of these chairs, the ability to go to the shops or the cinema or to visit friends, made a very great difference to the quality of life. Indeed, it does not require much imagination to see what a difference to one's existence is made by an ability to get around by one's own independent efforts.
Some questions arose which called for further thought. Is it right, for example, to have an age limit of 65? Is it really essential to retain the sight test required of car drivers? There is also the point that if it were possible to adapt chairs to meet individual needs, even greater benefits would flow. In the longer term, there could be problems of repairs and maintenance. There is also the practical question of producing a chair which is small enough to be usable inside the rather modest dwellings of some of those concerned but which at the same time is strong enough to mount the kerbs which are met with outside, perhaps when a carelessly parked car prevents the use of a graded entry to a pavement. But obviously the overriding problem is that of cost. A basic non-powered chair costs about £130. A new electric indoor chair costs about £750. But the cost of the chairs used in the pilot scheme came out at £1,500 to £2,000.
The DSA put in an interim bid for £10 million, for the present financial year, for an expansion of the scheme. That bid was not successful. But Mr. Kenneth Clarke, when Secretary of State for Health, managed to find £1 million from somewhere for additional indoor/outdoor powered chairs in the northern and north-western health regions. It is worth quoting what he said when he announced this grant at the Manchester disablement services centre last May. After expressing his delight at being able to make the announcement, he said:
"During my visit today I have met severely disabled people who have been using these chairs during the pilot study. I have seen for myself the way in which they can improve the quality of life of many disabled people. Most of us take for granted the freedom to collect our children from school, go to the shops or visit friends but for the severely disabled that freedom does not usually exist. This additional money will help around 450 disabled people to enjoy some of that freedom".
The problem is the difference between on the one hand, this extra 450 in two regions and the 200 under the pilot scheme and, on the other hand, the possible total, including the over-65s, for the country as a whole. We may be thinking in terms of numbers well in excess of 20,000.
When the functions of the DSA are transferred to the regional health authorities in April, there is to be a ring-fenced budget for the first two years. To judge from Mr. Clarke's statement, the Government were well aware of the merits of these chairs, and the DSA sought the inclusion of the sum of £53.25 million in the

1059
ring-fenced budget to allow for the general issue of these chairs from 1991–92 onwards. This was a good deal more than the previous total budget for wheelchairs.
In the event, I now understand that this bid has not been accepted. Although the ring-fenced budget which is to be handed over is to receive a welcome and substantial increase of rather more than 18 per cent. for 1991–92, the additional sums not only fall well short of what the DSA was asking for but carry with them, as I understand it, no requirement that they are to be used for indoor/outdoor powered chairs. The DSA tells me it hopes that some of the extra money will be devoted to this purpose, but there is evidently no obligation; and it is not to be forgotten that there are other pressing needs—notably the need for more provision for special seating in the ordinary types of wheelchair—which will cost a great deal of money.
Therefore, this evening there are many questions to be put to the Government. I should like to ask some of them and I am sure that other speakers will add to the list. The first is the obvious question of whether they think that the indoor/outdoor powered chair is a good idea and whether the provision of such chairs should be encouraged. Do they share the hope of the DSA that some of the extra money will be spent on those chairs? On what scale do they think that such chairs will in practice be issued on the financial allocations which are now to be made? How is it hoped to achieve a reasonable consistency between different parts of the country? Is any guidance being given about conditions, such as age limits and eyesight tests? Could there be different practices in those respects in different areas? Is there to be any continued research into devising the most satisfactory type of chair?
Further, on a practical point, can those who have been issued with chairs under the pilot scheme funded with Mr. Clarke's £1 million count on being able to keep them and on being able to have them properly serviced and maintained? Anything that the Minister can say of comfort on those issues will be most welcome and will reach a much wider audience than that present in the Chamber this evening.
I shall leave aside for the moment the problem of indoor/outdoor powered chairs. There is a great deal of anxiety about what will happen when the budget for the whole of the wheelchair and artificial limb services ceases to be ring fenced after 1993. There is a fear that there may be a serious risk that some of the money intended for those services will find itself diverted to competing needs. I have asked about prospects in the immediate future for indoor/outdoor powered chairs. I end my speech by going a little wide of my Question by asking what are the Government's plans from 1993 onwards for monitoring this valuable service? Further, how will they guarantee that those in need of limbs and chairs after 1993 will have those needs satisfactorily met?
8.23 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I suspect that all noble Lords and noble Baronesses taking part in this debate will wish to join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Allen, not only upon his persistence in the matter but also upon his success at the third attempt in getting a debate on his Question which the Government will be answering this evening.
Although tonight's debate takes place in the shadow of grave and difficult decisions that Her Majesty's Government must take, in a sense I am glad that it did not take place earlier. First, I believe that my noble friend Lord McColl would have been unable to take part on earlier occasions. We greatly look forward to hearing his contribution. Secondly, I believe that the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham of Ilton and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who are sitting in front of me, would have had similar difficulties. We look forward to their contributions bearing in mind the special insight which they bring to the problem. Indeed, I look forward to hearing all the speeches which will be made during the course of the debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has just said, we now know more about the Government's intentions. We also claim that the Disablement Services Authority, which was unanimous and most enthusiastic about these indoor/outdoor chairs, is now further advanced in its whole plan for the future organisation of the wheelchair service. I must declare an interest, in that I am chairman of the authority, which, as the noble Lord said, was a special health authority appointed in 1987 by no less a figure than the present Prime Minister (then serving the Government in a rather humbler capacity) with the remit to manage, to improve and eventually to hand over the service to the National Health Service.
In the report of his working party, which led to the appointment of this authority, my noble friend Lord McColl emphasised the need to provide an indoor/outdoor chair which at that early stage he clearly and wisely saw would transform the lives of men and women with most serious disabilities as well as helping many of them towards useful employment which they could not otherwise take. At the same time, he realised that this would reduce their need for care by providing them with greater mobility. I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble friend, who is sitting behind me, for being willing to postpone an important journey abroad in order to take part in the debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, the two pilot studies carried out in the north of England convinced the Disablement Services Authority that the provision of such a chair is an objective which must be achieved as soon as possible. Certainly few reports which I have read have reached so unanimous and wholehearted a conclusion. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 34 of the report. It reads:
"All the clients reported that the wheelchairs improved their lifestyles, giving them the independence and self-esteem to undertake a variety of activities that would not have been possible without an indoor/outdoor wheelchair".

1061
I sometimes think that it may be difficult for able-bodied people fully to appreciate the glorious access to freedom which this new provision will bring to a few thousand of our most needy fellow citizens. It is very easy to take mobility for granted, yet it is one of the most precious gifts enjoyed by human beings. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, the authority asked Her Majesty's Government for the resources necessary to provide the chairs. The bid was for a large sum of money—£53 million. The Government have not produced that amount, but they have replied in a rather different way. They have increased considerably in all the regions the allocation for the services which the authority is about to hand over, of which the wheelchair service is an important part.
From the beginning of next April, when the DSA comes to an end, it will be the duty of each regional health authority to try to distribute this increased sum among the districts in its region. By that time, each of those districts will be responsible for the wheelchair service. That has been the aim behind the policy of the Disablement Services Authority for nearly the whole of its short life. Soon after our appointment, members of the authority recognised the fact that the wheelchair service must be brought as close as possible to those who will use it.
I have been encouraged, from a number of visits I have paid to district health authorities now running the service, in the belief that we took the right decision. One hundred and eighty-three of the districts in England are now responsible and the remaining handful will be added before the end of March. So this devolution of responsibility is all but complete, and it is in the districts that the decision to provide indoor/outdoor chairs will be implemented.
Ever if district health authorities do not at first believe that they have enough resources to make this addition to the wheelchairs they are providing at present, I hope that sufficient will be put at the disposal of each district health authority to enable it to bring such a benefit to those in greatest need. Although it is obviously not for the Disablement Services Authority for much longer to provide any guidance at all, I hope that local health authorities will take into account what I might call the social benefit in any priorities they have to decide.
In conclusion, I need hardly add that it will be of great satisfaction to all members of my authority, as we finish the work we were appointed to do, if a large number of health authorities decide in the coming year to lay a firm foundation by means of this addition to the service, for which its most disabled users understandably feel they have already waited very patiently and for too long.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like also to join in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in raising this important subject this evening. It has been a great privilege also to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, describe the arrangements which have been made for when the Disablement Services
1062
Authority, which currently has responsibility for the wheelchair and artificial limb services, transfers this responsibility to the regional health authorities, who will in turn devolve services no doubt to the district health authorities with, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, pointed out, a ring-fenced budget for the first two years.
Many health authorities have expressed concern that the level of funding for this service will be inadequate, particularly if the service is to be improved. There is concern also—the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to this—that once the budget ceases to be ring-fenced in 1993 some of the money intended for the wheelchair and artificial limb services will be channelled into other health services which may, in the light of the National Health Service reforms, be given higher priority.
RADAR, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, is concerned that this will mean that the wheelchair service will become another Cinderella service and that after 1993 limb and wheelchair users will have to fight high-profile, life-saving clinical services for cash-limited funds. It would appear that a continued ring-fenced budget for the wheelchair and artificial limb services is vital. With the wheelchair and limb budget not ring-fenced after 1993, how will the Government guarantee clients the best quality limbs and chairs which are needed after that?
An extremely important, but often ignored, aspect of the needs of people in wheelchairs is special seating. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, made some reference to this. Correct seating is of vital importance to people who use wheelchairs, affecting their independence, their health and their state of mind. Someone who is incorrectly seated may, for example, be unable to feed himself. In addition, extra pressure is put upon carers, who will frequently need to adjust the position of the person in the wheelchair. Such dependence upon others inevitably increases frustration and results in a loss of confidence. More worrying still, if incorrectly seated, people with deteriorating neurological conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, can become deformed and suffer an increase in spasticity, a predisposition to pressure sores and joint contractures. The treatment of an average pressure sore costs the National Health Service at least £30,000.
RADAR is extremely concerned about the lack of provision of special wheelchair seating. The Department of Health, in its February 1990 report to Parliament under Section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 recognises the importance of special seating. It says:
"There are significant increases in the number of projects concerning wheelchairs and seating, underlining the importance of optimising posture and mobility in order to achieve maximum independence and function for physically disabled people".
Some of the language in that may seem a little out-dated, but we get the meaning very clearly. They are saying there is more to be done in optimising posture than has been done up to now. A report by the Leonard Cheshire Foundation, based on its residents,

1063
shows that over a third of them were badly seated or could be seated better. Information from sources such as the Leonard Cheshire Foundation and the Multiple Sclerosis Society suggests that some 70,000 to 100,000 people are in need of special seating. With wheelchair cushions alone costing from £35 to £350 each and with more sophisticated matrix seating costing around £800, the indications are that some £50 million would be required to provide an adequate service. This is a small sum in comparison with the potential cost to the health service of £3,000 million in the treatment of pressure sores because the correct seating had not been made available.
I understand that the Department of Health has recently allocated £1 million to the funding of special seating. I should like to ask the Minister whether that is correct. If so, this provides only between £10 to £14 per person, and is far from adequate. Will the Government recognise the savings to the National Health Service which would be made possible by the provision of an adequate budget for special seating? The Government are surely committed to improving the independence and mobility of disabled people. Will they back this commitment by making resources available for the provision of powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs nationally for disabled people who need them and also for the provision of special seating for disabled people who need it? Will they also ensure that after 1993 the budget is used for the purpose for which it is intended?
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale has struck it lucky the third time round and I should also like to congratulate him on his persistence. I also wish to congratulate him very much on his clear, sympathetic and very comprehensive summary of the indoor/outdoor powered wheelchair situation. May I also say what a particular pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to have an opportunity to say how pleasing it is to hear his wise and measured words once again.
I am grateful for the kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, but, not being a regular powered wheelchair user, I wondered whether there was anything useful I could add to what the very knowledgeable noble Lord had said and also to what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, could tell us. However, I was spurred into taking part by the informed comments of the Joint Committee on the Mobility for Disabled People, of which I am a member, and by the memory of a magic sense of freedom when a few years ago the noble Lord, Lord McColl, arrived with a prototype of the Squirrel powered wheelchair and I traversed my garden and went over parts where I had never been before. It really did open up new vistas for me. The Squirrel then ran into financial difficulties, but I am delighted to hear that it is now to be developed by Shanning International, because I think it is a chair with great potential.
The Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People was delighted at the Disablement Service
1064
Authority's initiative in issuing a limited number of powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs, at the outcome of that initiative, and at the agreement by the Secretary of State for Health to spend an extra £2 million on wheelchair and special seating in the Northern and North-Western Region.
It is generally agreed that the powered outdoor wheelchair currently available, the DSA model 28B, is unsatisfactory. My noble friend Lord Allen has already described it as cumbersome. It weighs over 14 stone without its user and it makes a Dalek look quite neat. It is very difficult to manoeuvre and it cannot cope with steps, thresholds, steep slopes or full-sized kerbs. I am told by a mobility centre that some users return the chair within weeks of issue because they simply cannot manage it. This is hardly appropriate mobility for the 1990s.
The most unsatisfactory aspect of model 28B, which my noble friend has already touched on, is the fact that it is attendant-operated. Mobility should lead to freedom, which goes hand in hand with independence. It also means that the helpers have time on their own too. Physical independence has spin-off benefits: one becomes more independent in other ways. This was a very cheering aspect that emerged from the pilot study. The noble Lord has already quoted paragraph 34. I wish to quote from paragraph 27, which says much the same thing; namely, that the conclusion of the regional staff was that
"overall the clients were delighted with this type of wheelchair because it considerably improved their outdoor mobility, giving them an improved degree of independence and markedly increasing their self-esteem. The vast majority of clients who participated in the Study were reported to be keen to retain their indoor/outdoor wheelchair."
I very much hope—and the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People stressed this too—that this limited issue will rapidly be expanded to cover the whole country. Very severely disabled people's quality of life should not depend so critically on where they live. I also feel strongly that people over 65 should be included, particularly those who are unable to apply for mobility allowance on account of their age.
As has already been mentioned, there is a great deal of concern about future funding when the responsibility for issuing wheelchairs is transferred to the regional health authorities. It will be ring-fenced for two years, but there are grave doubts about whether the funding is adequate to provide the range of wheelchairs and cushions urgently needed. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that there will be no cutting back of existing services; rather, that the Government will improve the service and take account of modern wheelchair and cushion developments. The whole cushion service is at present under great pressure (there is no pun intended there), but it is crucial that the full range of satisfactory cushions remains available. This is an area in which I can speak with a little more experience and feeling.
It is a false economy, for example, to stop the issue of the more expensive cushions which are most effective in preventing pressure sores—they can cost about £250—because in the end, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, treating a pressure sore can cost

1065
£20,000 or more and mean the occupation of a hospital bed for perhaps 12 weeks, to say nothing of the disruption in the life of the patient and his or her family.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has already spoken at great length about special seating, but I should like to say a little about it because it is a very important subject The extra £1 million for special seating is very welcome, and the giving of that extra £1 million acknowledges the importance of special seating. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, incorrect postures can mean not only pressure sores but, for example, contractures leading to impaired mobility and loss of independence. RADAR and other organisations, including the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Leonard Cheshire Foundation, are concerned about the under-provision of special seating. They say that funding is far from adequate.
Would the Minister agree to undertake a survey of the number of people in need of special seating so that future provision can meet their needs?
The Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People—who I think the Minister would agree is not given to over-reacting —says that it is very worried indeed about the prospects for the service throughout the country when ring-fenced funding ends in April 1993. It would like ring-fencing to continue. Without ring-fencing the wheelchair and cushion services will have to compete for funds with the glamour areas of transplant and heart surgery. The provision of independent mobility and correct seating and cushions may be unexciting, but it enables users to be healthier, more confident and more useful members of the community. It keeps them out of hospital. It makes very good sense practically and financially, as well as in terms of human happiness.
Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will give some positive and encouraging assurances about the long-term future of the wheelchair service.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, along with many others I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this timely debate on the subject of powered wheelchairs.
As your Lordships know, the Government became concerned with the services involved in the supply of artificial limbs, wheelchairs and other appliances, and asked me to chair a working party to examine their adequacy, quality and management. I was very fortunate to have the help of an exceptional group of people without whom I very much doubt whether we would have had any success at all. Among others, they included giants such as Mr. Duke Hussey, Sir Austen Bunch and Professor Brian Griffiths, soon to be Lord Griffiths.
It is no secret that there was a certain reluctance among, the disablement services, as they were then, to accept our diagnosis of what was wrong and to accept the treatment that we advised. The report was about to be put on that well-known dust-producing shelf when it was rescued by a junior Minister who really galvanised the machinery into instant action and, as a
1066
result, almost all the 49 recommendations were implemented. So impressive was his practical knowledge and concern for disabled people, and so outstanding was his ability to make decisions and actually implement them, that I confidently told many of my friends that he would be the next Prime Minister.
In response to our report, Mr. John Major announced in another place on 17th February 1987 some important improvements in wheelchair provision. Three new types of chair were to be developed, and the wheelchair service was to supply for the first time, as has already been mentioned, special seating systems for those who needed it. However, one of our concerns not covered by that announcement was the supply of indoor/outdoor powered chairs. As your Lordships know, those who need occupant-controlled powered chairs are supplied with them for indoor use only. The indoor/outdoor powered chair is more powerful, more robust and, of course, more expensive.
The question of cost has always prevented the services, while under direct government control, from supplying such chairs. When the Disablement Service Authority, of which I have the honour to be vice-chairman, took over the service it seized the nettle and conducted a pilot study in Newcastle and in Manchester. As we did not know how many of the chairs would be required, we drew up precise criteria for their issue which were simple to apply. From that study we concluded that to provide the chairs throughout England would cost £11 million. If the provision were extended to those above the age of 65, the total bill would be £53 million. As most of us are either moving towards 65 or have passed it, we are increasingly interested in the provisions for more elderly people.
As noble Lords know, by 1st April 1991 the disablement services will be devolved completely to the National Health Service. With its demise, the DSA is able to bequeath resources to its successor health authorities, showing an overall cash increase of more than 18 per cent. in 1991–92, compared with the 1990–91 regional budgets. Some regions will receive 20 per cent. more compared with this year. That gives local health authorities a real opportunity. We reckon that the cost to each district health authority of supplying indoor/outdoor wheelchairs on the criteria which we used in the pilot study would only be about £58,000. If the supply were extended to include those above the age of 65, the total cost to each district health authority would only be £278,000.
I know that some will say that against the background of demands from other parts of the health service now is not the time to proceed with this. To them I point out that the district health authorities have to consider all the needs of the population they serve. The Disablement Services Authority funding will be ring-fenced until 1993 and there is this large step-increase in resources between this year and next. When the district health authorities decide how to spend their wheelchair money next year, I trust that they will have near the top of their priorities these comparatively modest sums. After all, half the

1067
population will be disabled to a greater or lesser extent before they die. For most disabled people these chairs make all the difference.
In conclusion, I wish to pay special tribute to the civil servants and the National Health Service officials who have combined in this unique experiment of forming a special health authority with a life of less than four years, charged with taking over the disablement services from the DHSS, re-vamping them, greatly improving their quality and then transferring them to the National Health Service. They will be integrated with the service at district level for wheelchair provision and at supra-district level for artificial limb provision.
Great credit goes to the officials and members of the board, especially to our chairman, my noble friend Lord Holderness, who has been ably assisted by his chief executive, Mr. Melvyn Jeremiah, whose capacity for work seems endless. This has indeed been a success story with which I am proud to have been associated.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale for giving us the chance to say a few words on the subject of providing an indoor/outdoor electric wheelchair for severely disabled people ranging between the ages of five to 65 years. This is our third attempt to debate a subject which concerns giving a far greater quality of life to severely disabled people. The most precious quality for anyone is their independence. Until one has lost it, it is difficult to appreciate how important every added bit of independence is to the individual and those who may help him. Thanks should go to all those people who helped with the report. A special thanks should go to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for the work he did on his report as well as on this one.
Debating this subject at the eleventh hour of the Gulf situation makes me think of the invasion of Normandy. It was because of the expected casualties at that time that the National Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke Mandeville Hospital was set up for service personnel paralysed in the war. I hope and pray that there will not be a war because with every war come many long-term severely disabled people.
I am very concerned at this time with the closures or pending closures of centres which provide support and rehabilitation for physically disabled people. I have received several letters and a signed petition from the people living in and around Newcastle-upon-Tyne because their only day centre for severely physically disabled people, the Shield Field Day Centre, is threatened with closure as the social services department is short of funds. I have written to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and to the director of social services in Newcastle. I await replies. Closures have already happened. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, said that that was a fear. I wish that it were not, but I could give him examples of centres which have already closed.
It was Newcastle and Manchester which undertook this pilot study for indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. I wish
1068
to ask why these two cities were chosen. The most important point about the pilot study was that clients who reported said that the electric indoor/outdoor wheelchair enhanced the quality of their lives 100 per cent. One woman who knew that an electric wheelchair would give her the independence and quality of life she needed to remain in the community and stay independent wrote to me several years ago. I contacted her Member of Parliament, who happened to be Mr. Callaghan, now the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. His secretary was most helpful, giving me the names of voluntary organisations in that part of Wales which I contacted. The lady received her wheelchair and she later wrote to me saying, "I feel I am a bird let out of a cage". She was free to visit the park and do her shopping in the local shops. Surely if there is such a thing as care in the community it must be about enabling people to do as much as they can for themselves. If they can do little, they should be enabled to survive without being incarcerated in their homes.
As founder and now president of the Spinal Injuries Association, I find that it would be totally impracticable for the high lesion tetra- or quadriplegics to use a chair which could not go inside and outside. The very severely disabled people are paralysed from the neck down. The Spinal Injuries Association states:
"The rules governing the issue of indoor/outdoor chairs mitigate very harshly against our more severely disabled members".
When SIA surveyed the tetraplegic members in 1981 it was found that not one of these people used the chair issued by the DHSS. Their comments were that the DHSS chair was not reliable, not comfortable and not suitable for their lifestyle. A person paralysed from the neck down does not want to transfer in and out of a chair more than is strictly necessary; nor will his helper want to lift him in or out more than is necessary. Think of the helper's back when lifting a heavy, totally paralysed person. Thus a chair which will cope with both inside and outdoor conditions is absolutely vital for severely disabled people.
In 1989–90, the Spinal Injuries Association was given a most helpful grant by the Wolfson Foundation to help with mobility problems. It received over 200 applications and was able to assess about 80 people. After she received her wheelchair, one woman said:
"The wheelchair has taken the strain off our marriage. It gives me the chance to go out on my own and to give my husband a break. It was sheer chance that we received assistance from the Wolfson Fund. If I had not been a member of the Spinal Injuries Association I would still be totally dependent on my husband for my mobility".
Organisations such as RADAR, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Leonard Cheshire Foundation and the SIA are worried about what will happen when the present service is integrated into the local health authorities' services, as has been mentioned by several of your Lordships. It is vital that there should be the expertise and funding for correct seating. An incorrect, cheap cushion can cause pressure sores, with disastrous and expensive results. The correct seating, as with the correct chair, for the individual is

1069
cost-effective in the long run, but its provision needs expert training and for interest to be shown by the professionals running the service.
In many health authority areas the needs of physically disabled people come a long way down the list of priorities. There are often district teams to deal with the problems of the mentally handicapped, but that is riot the case with the physically disabled. Expert advice should be available for all who need it. Disabled patients or clients are often shuttled from pillar to post as they have become a non-priority group. I hope that the Department of Health will not wash its hands of all responsibility, because clear guidelines on good practice and specialised needs should be circulated to all regions and districts.
The provision of an electric wheelchair for indoor/outdoor use is not the end of the matter. A good tack-up service is needed. These chairs need reliable and efficient servicing. There must be a breakdown procedure or people may be marooned in the middle of a supermarket or in an isolated lane. Each district should have a pool of chairs for that purpose. Will there be insurance and maintenance cover? There should be puncture-proof tyres, maintenance-free batteries and the correct seating for the individual, as I have said. The assessment staff should be trained. When assessment takes place, the individual user (the client) should be part of that assessment. The user's needs are the main point of the exercise. Training should be provided for the user and his or her helpers, if they have them. Safety straps should be provided so that users are not thrown out of the chairs when going up or down a kerb or bump. As stated in the report, there should be kerb climbers when needed.
To provide a good package there needs to be proper investment and training and an efficient service for all who need it. Many elderly people feel left out. I believe that many organisations for the elderly could do more for their disabled members. They often seem to forget their neediest members. I hope that Age Concern, the Distressed Gentlefolks Aid Association and other organisations will expand their help for disabled people.
I hope that the pilot study will be extended to all parts of the British Isles so that before too long the people who need these chairs and have no other means of obtaining them will be able to have a suitable chair of their choice.
9.4 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, it is, as always, a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I must admit that had this Unstarred Question been tabled at the beginning of last year I should have been saying something different. I unfortunately broke my ankle in April and for several months I found out what it was like to be immobile. I was in a wheelchair twice. In one way that terrified me. I would be sitting looking at something when some well-meaning person would suddenly grab the chair. I would be swung around by someone I did not know. I did not know whether I could trust them. Normally I could not.
1070
I hope the noble Baroness will not mind if I tell a little story. It was "white cane" day. She drove up in her car and got out with her wheelchair. I was there by arrangement so that I could help her up the kerb. A well-meaning young man brushed me aside and said that he would help. He grabbed the chair. He headed towards the kerb. I thought, "Oh, my God". Sure enough, he hit the kerb. The noble Baroness mentioned seat belts. My goodness, she needed one! She was jerked forward, and stopped just in time. Looking round at that keen, healthy young man she said in a pained voice, "Please, let Lord Attlee do it, he's an expert". I was pleased by that, although not because she called me an expert. I now realise why she said that.
I was once swung around in a wheelchair. Admittedly I was on board a ship. My right foot, which was heavily plastered, crashed into a pillar. Had it not been for the thick plaster, untold damage would have been done. I had some experience before that because I was a volunteer ambulance driver. I could do that work only at weekends, but I became used to loading and unloading wheelchairs and locking them into position in an ambulance. Therefore, when I read the report I was interested to see that people could load wheelchairs into cars. An ordinary wheelchair with somebody in it is difficult enough to manoeuvre and load into a vehicle when there is a ramp. How anyone can load it into a car beats me. I am glad, therefore, that this debate is not only about powered wheelchairs.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I question why there is an age limit of 65, which is the age I shall reach next year. Why on earth does someone in a powered wheelchair have to meet the same eyesight requirements as someone who drives a car? In view of the speed at which the chairs will travel it is clear that one does not need to be able to see 30 yards ahead.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lords, Lord Holderness and Lord McColl, I do not like the report. This may be a personal view, but I dislike any report printed in proportional spacing with the letters crammed together so that an "n" and an "i" look like an "m". I found the report very hard to read.
Regarding the specification of the three wheelchairs, if one has to manoeuvre a wheelchair in and out of houses and up stairs one wants to know how much the chair weighs. The report gives all sorts of information about the wheelchairs but not their weight. I shall not ask the Minister to answer that question tonight because I have a feeling that she does not know the answer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned batteries. Some wheelchairs are supplied only with dangerous lead acid batteries. The far safer and more powerful gell battery can be obtained, but at additional cost.
Like other speakers I am at a loss to understand why both of the centres where the trials were carried out are in the North. We talk about the North-South

1071
divide; there are many differences between the two halves of the country and it is a pity that the report was based on trials carried out only in the North.
Another criticism of the report relates to the number of people involved. While about 58 per cent. of those questioned may have thought that a particular wheelchair was very good, which sounds wonderful, trials involved only about 53 people. Only 6 per cent. thought that the chairs were bad. That is fine, but it means only about six people. Far too few people were questioned to make the statistics anything but airy-fairy.
I should like to conclude with two further points. The first concerns the cushions. It is intolerable that an expensive piece of equipment costing over £1,000 should have a standard seat. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, if one does not have the correct seat one gets sores and can hurt one's spine.
I should like to underline one point concerning special seating. Here I have an interest, admittedly an emotional one. My wife's eldest brother suffers from an advanced stage of multiple sclerosis. My wife and I see him when we can and his mother visits him three or four times a week. When I look at him I wonder how his bottom and thighs feel when he sits all day in his wheelchair.
The report shows that there is a requirement for powered wheelchairs. Any wheelchair gives a certain amount of independence, but to use a muscle-powered wheelchair one needs strong arms, shoulders and hands. Many people who are severely disabled do not have the necessary muscle power. I hope that not only will the Government find sufficient money to provide powered wheelchairs for those who need them but that they will also review some of the unwise restrictions as to age and the need to have eyes like a hawk.
9.13 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, at the third attempt the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has at last been able to ask a most important question of the Government this evening. It is particularly important in view of the nearness of the transfer of the wheelchair and artificial limb services from the Disablement Services Authority to regional health authorities.
RADAR and others are concerned that in 1993, when the budget ceases to be ring-fenced, some of the money intended for wheelchair services and artificial limbs may be channelled into other health services. When the wheelchair and artificial limb budget is no longer ring-fenced after 1993, can the Minister say how the Government can guarantee clients the best quality limbs and chairs, especially those severely disabled people who need indoor/outdoor powered chairs?
The Spinal Injuries Association tells me, as my noble friend, Lady Masham has already said, that a person paralysed from the neck down does not want to transfer in and out of a chair more than is strictly necessary, so that a chair which can cope with indoor and outdoor conditions is absolutely necessary.
1072
In paragraph 82 of the McColl Report it is estimated that there are about 400,000 users of wheelchairs. There are two distinct categories. About 85 per cent. may use chairs for a short time each day, or they may be temporary users of chairs. The second group consists of users who are so severely disabled that they spend many hours a week in their chairs and are totally reliant on their equipment. They make up about 15 per cent. of the total.
While the budget is still ring-fenced, the regional health authorities (or the district health authorities, if they are responsible) will have to decide where the money is to be spent. Will they hope to have perhaps six people in wheelchairs which are used by occasional users or one person who needs the much more expensive indoor/outdoor powered chair? After 1993, when the budget is no longer ring-fenced, how can we be reassured that the regional health authorities will still continue to provide the money for the most appropriate chair for the person's needs?
An extremely important but often ignored aspect of the needs of people in wheelchairs is the special seating which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and my noble friend, Lady Darcy, have already mentioned. Correct seating is of vital importance to people who use wheelchairs, affecting their independence, health and state of mind. For example, somebody who is incorrectly seated may be unable to feed himself. This causes extreme pressure to be put on carers, who will frequently need to adjust the position of the person in the wheelchair. I am sure the Government would agree that such dependence upon others inevitably increases frustration and results in loss of confidence.
The Department of Health, in its recent report to Parliament (February 1990) under Section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, recognised the importance of special seating. The Government have recently allocated £1 million to special seating, for which they must be thanked, but can the Minister say how much it is costing the NHS to treat pressure sores which result from poor seating?
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one more question. Can she say what consultative mechanisms are planned so that disabled people may influence the wheelchair service in the future, particularly as regards the indoor/outdoor chairs? I hope the Minister can give us some hope when she replies tonight.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I believe that the whole House and probably all disabled people dependent on wheelchairs will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for his persistence and for the way in which he presented his case.
I must declare an interest as one of the vice-presidents of RADAR and as President of the College of Occupational Therapists. I am very interested in this question. Not only do I want to add to the praise given to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, who has done so much for disabled people by raising issues in this House and by his other works: I want to express the thanks of all noble Lords for what the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, and the noble Lord, Lord McColl,

1073
have done during their period as Chairman and Vice-President of the Disablement Services Authority. I think the appointments, both of which were made by a young man who has since achieved prominence, were very imaginative. Perhaps it was intentional that this debate was delayed until Mr. Major had become Prime Minister and had the sort of authority which would enable some of the anxieties which have been expressed in all parts of the House to be laid to rest.
As the noble Lords, Lord Allen and Lord Holderness, have explained, in April 1991 the functions of the Disablement Services Authority in relation to wheelchairs and artificial limb services will be transferred to the regional health authorities. In turn they will pass on those responsibilities to district health authorities with, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, a ring-fenced budget for the first two years.
With others, I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Banks, back to his place. With his customary fervour he said how much many of the health authorities were concerned about what would happen in terms of the level of funding. We ought to look at the work that has been done by the Disablement Services Authority and at the decision that, after that work and that of the working party presided over by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, we ought to be looking with enthusiasm and hope for the consequences of its work being taken over by the National Health Service. It offers a great opportunity and means that services will be provided by health authorities at very near the level of the people who need those services.
However, it would be an absolute tragedy if, instead of that being a great opportunity to improve the services available for disabled people, it turned out to produce a reduction in the service or indeed not to provide the opportunity for the improvements which modern technology has made available. I know that many authorities are deeply concerned that the wheelchair service might become another Cinderella service and that noble Lords will constantly ask why the services are not being provided. It requires very great determination and will on the part of the Government to see that funds are made available to ensure that the service is properly provided.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, during 1989–90 the DSA carried out a pilot study in the north and north-west health authorities and 200 powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs were issued to selected individuals. As was noted at the end of the study, those individuals were permitted to retain the wheelchairs and the Department of Health made available an additional £1 million for that purpose. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, to provide that quality of service in wheelchairs for all those people who need them the DSA estimates that £53 million would be required.
I hope that in response to what several noble Lords have said the Minister will make a very clear statement about the funds that will be available. We ask these questions. With the wheelchair and limb budget not being ring-fenced after 1993 how will the Government guarantee that clients receive the best quality of limbs and chairs needed after that? What arrangements will
1074
be made to monitor the wheelchair service once it is integrated into the National Health Service? Is the Minister aware that the level of funding so far is inadequate to provide indoor/outdoor powered chairs and the special seating referred to by a number of noble Lords this evening?
Unless there is a massive increase in the budget, there is a danger that disabled people will be forced into self-propelled or inferior models which can themselves be disabling. We must ask the department what steps it will be taking to ensure regional parity of service so that the service received does not depend on the part of the country in which one lives. I must ask whether it is defensible that certain people in the north and north-west regions should now have possession of powered wheelchairs on the National Health Service and that such vehicles are not available for people with similar needs in other parts of the country. Are the Government prepared to make available the required resources in order to rectify that apparent injustice?
Currently, people who need powered wheelchairs have to buy them privately. Therefore, the precise number of people who own such wheelchairs is not available. However there are some half dozen or so manufacturers of those wheelchairs, each of whom regularly produces new models. It is highly unlikely that that would be the case if the demand were not substantial. At an average cost of £1,800 per chair, it is equally unlikely that people will buy them if they do not genuinely need them, particularly as disabled people tend to be in the lowest income bracket. It is part of the responsibility of the Government, and also of the National Health Service because it seeks to provide a service available to all at the point of need, to seek to provide the best quality mobility vehicles —that is, indoor/outdoor wheelchairs—for all disabled people regardless of their ability to pay. It would be sad if there were a degree of privilege, particularly as disabled people tend to be at the lowest end of the income bracket.
I shall not comment upon special seating because that was fully discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. Under the new system assessment proposes to involve more occupational therapists and physiotherapists. I welcome that provided that the disabled people have a full say. However, we are faced with a grave shortage of occupational therapists and physiotherapists. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, as a vice-president of the College of Occupational Therapists, is fully aware of that. Perhaps the Minister will recognise the acute shortage of occupational therapists and physiotherapists and say whether more can be done to meet the needs.
Reference was also made to the importance of consultation with disabled people. The Minister was asked about the consultation that she has had with disabled people and their organisations about the integration of the wheelchair service into the regional health authorities. If during the two years from April we discover a fear that after the end of ring-fencing the service might deteriorate will the Minister and the

1075
Secretary of State consider extending the period of ring-fencing in order to ensure that the service expands?
I am sure that we all welcome the new traffic lights that have been provided in Parliament Square opposite St. Margaret's Church. However, I have received many complaints from disabled people that the ramp there is so steep as to be dangerous. I hope that someone will hear this plea on behalf of wheelchair users. A sharp ramp can create great dangers, particularly in an area where there is a great deal of traffic. We look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to a short debate for which we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on his perseverance in raising this Question. I am glad that it has been a case of third time lucky. It is an important subject, as every speaker in the debate has recognised. Everyone can envisage the difference that powered wheelchairs must make to the life of disabled people who need them. We in this House are fortunate in having among us Members with first-hand experience who are sufficiently articulate to put the message across. I listened with interest and considerable sympathy to all the contributions this evening. I assure your Lordships that the Department of Health recognises that indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs can considerably enhance the quality of life of some severely disabled people. We do what we can to encourage their use.
Perhaps I may first make some comments on the role of the Disablement Services Authority, although much has already been said. We have heard about its role and the excellent work it has carried out. I am very happy to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in taking this opportunity to acknowledge the work of my noble friend Lord Holderness and his team at the Disablement Services Authority.
As was envisaged at the outset, the authority will cease to exist from this April. However, arrangements have been made between the authority and local district health authorities to ensure a smooth takeover and a continued high level of commitment to those services in the National Health Service in the context of an integrated rehabilitation service. That includes the ring-fencing of services currently provided by the authority for the two years following its abolition. However, I feel sure that the services provided in that area will remain as a lasting tribute to the work of the Disablement Services Authority, which aims to meet quickly and cost-effectively the short-range mobility needs of people of all ages who have serious and permanent difficulties in walking.
To that end, the authority supplies over 250 types of wheelchair for users of all ages. These include two types of powered chair—a self-propelling indoor powered chair for people who cannot walk or propel an ordinary wheelchair and an attendant-controlled outdoor chair for those carers who cannot push a
1076
chair. The authority supplied over 8,400 of these powered chairs last year, which represents an increase of 9 per cent. on the previous year. Taking all kinds of wheelchair, almost 170,000 were issued last year—8 per cent. up on 1988–89.
As has been explained this evening, the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, took the view that occupant controlled indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs would help to improve the independence and quality of life for severely disabled people and recommended that such chairs should be supplied by the NHS. Again, as the noble Lord said, following the authority's examination of that issue, a pilot study was carried out in northern and north-western regions during 1989–90. I understand that the DSA selected those two pilot sites as the disablement services centres in those areas already had the appropriate medical and technical expertise and the necessary administrative support to be able to run a successful pilot study. No North/South divide exaggeration was intended.
The final report of the study became available earlier this year. It found that such powered wheelchairs could significantly improve the quality of life of severely disabled people, which came as no surprise to a number of people. It also confirmed the validity of the prescription criteria as a basis for future supply, although the authority decided subsequently to remove the upper age limit of 65 which previously formed part of the criteria for eligibility. I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that the conditions discussed were for use in the pilot schemes. Conditions for any future issues will be a matter for the National Health Service.
Mention has been made of the unsuccessful bid for additional funds to extend powered wheelchair provision in the 1990–91 spending round and the fact that the then Secretary of State was able to allocate an additional £1 million during the year. For 1991–92 we have made an increase in the funds earmarked for disabled services in general which exceeds not only the GDP forecast but also, admittedly by a small amount, the general growth allocations of regional health authorities. That has been done to help to ensure that money is there to meet the existing demand for special wheelchair seating.
It must be said that the difficulty, as always, in earmarking funds centrally is that we tend to look at our own special interests in feeling that earmarking would be helpful. However, in practice it means that the matters earmarked tend to build up, and the freedom of management in the regions is therefore constrained. As a result, a certain amount of local flexibility is lost. As noble Lords will be aware, local health authorities feel strongly about that.
The position of overall funding changes from year to year, as do the priorities within it. Therefore I must say at this point that we also remain free to consider the case again in subsequent years. I remind noble Lords that however good the case for funding, the cost of offering a powered chair immediately to everyone who could benefit would be very large. The typical cost of the limited range of wheelchairs used in the

1077
pilot study was mentioned as being between £1,500 and £2,000. Non-powered standard wheelchairs come out at a round £130. To move straight from the present pilot scheme to full provision for all those who need the wheelchairs would almost treble the cost of wheelchair services in the country from about £33 million to £86 million. Realistically, we are looking at a period of several years over which we hope that powered indoor/outdoor chairs may become progressively more widely available.
I should add that the Royal College of Physicians issued a timely report on their survey of health services for adults with physical disabilities. That report was published last November and will certainly be useful to all those concerned with planning and running services for disabled people.
In answer to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, I should also say on the point of consultation that all disablement services centres have been encouraged to set up user consultation arrangements to take account of the views of users. The DSA has also emphasised the importance of consultation. No one will have to give up a powered wheelchair that has already been issued. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. We continue to hope that those districts which have people with indoor/outdoor chairs from the DSA will find the resources necessary for maintenance.
Regarding the fears that ring-fenced budgets may be raided for other purposes after 1993, I must say that every group that comes to us fears that the National Health Service reforms will mean less funds for their group. With continuing growth in total spending, they cannot all be right. However, health authorities will be responsible for addressing all the health needs of their residents. There is no reason to fear that our reforms of the National Health Service will funnel a greater share of funds into the acute sector.
I appreciate that there is a cost to treating such things as pressure sores. However, in passing I must say that the estimate of £3,000 million given by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for that cost is not a credible estimate. That represents almost one-eighth of all National Health Service expenditure. I may have misquoted the figure, but I shall look at Hansard to make sure.
Regarding the funding for special seating, part of the reason for the good increase in funding for these services is that we have specifically taken account of the growing demand for special seating. Whether or not we should have a survey of those needing special seating is a matter for individual health authorities. Again, they will have the responsibility of identifying the health needs of their residents and the obligation to act on them.
With regard to the assessment of wheelchair users, in the most difficult cases that will be carried out by multi-disciplinary teams which will include rehabilitation medicine consultants, OTs, physios and medical/technical officers. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and others referred to regional parity. The
1078
normal process of the National Health Service management executive reviews of regions and the collection of statistics identifies those regions whose performance is weakest. The number of occupational and physiotherapists has increased by a considerable amount in the past 10 years.
Perhaps the most predominant question that I have been asked this evening is what happens after ring-fencing ends in 1993. We believe that by 1993 the wheelchair and artificial limb services should be firmly entrenched in their local National Health Service within a developing consultant-led specialty of rehabilitation medicine. In any case the separation of purchasers and providers which our National Health Service reforms create will ensure that there is a serious examination by the purchaser of which health needs are greatest. There will be less scope for powerful hospital specialists to divert resources into what may be considered to be more glamorous areas. We will monitor their efforts by collecting statistics on activity and expenditure; by the National Health Service management executive's review of regions; by the appointment of persons of standing in every region in order to champion the causes of the disablement services and who will sound the alarm if problems arise anywhere.
There will also be one regional general manager and one regional director of public health specifically responsible for the services. The Department of Health will be in regular touch with these individuals. In any event any money earmarked centrally is by no means the whole picture. A health authority should not need to be told that a service such as these wheelchairs is worth special support. As I have said, we shall be monitoring the progress and, no doubt, if it becomes necessary, we may have to consider guidance which is another matter about which I was asked.
I hope that many will conclude that without these measures further funds should be allocated locally. During the period of ring-fencing the allocation which each district will get to purchase disablement services for its residents will be the minimum and not the maximum they can spend. Powered wheelchairs have been proved to represent an extremely good investment for some severely disabled persons. Clearly district health authorities will need to weigh the competing priorities they face very carefully. Given the obvious value of powered indoor and outdoor wheelchairs for those able to benefit from them, I hope and feel sure that districts will find ways of bringing the developments and advantages of ever-improving technology and making them more widely available and that this will not be a Cinderella service.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, there is one question which the noble Baroness has not answered in her very interesting speech. Is any general guidance being given about age limits and conditions of that kind or is there a risk that different practices will be followed in different areas?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I thought that I had touched on the fact that the criteria laid down in the pilot projects will not

1079
necessarily be followed throughout the national Health Service. We do not envisage issuing guidance, but if in the course of monitoring the progress of services we feel that guidance is necessary, we shall issue it.

Avon Light Rail Transist Bill [H.L.]
Bill withdrawn.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  BOVINE SOMATOTROPIN IN MILK
  BOVINE SOMATOTROPIN IN MILK
  LESS FAVOURED AREAS: EXTENSION
  LESS FAVOURED AREAS: EXTENSION
  BOVINE OFFAL: EXPORT CONTROL
  BOVINE OFFAL: EXPORT CONTROL
  SALMONELLA IN IMPORTED EGGS
  SALMONELLA IN IMPORTED EGGS
  SALMONELLA: CONTROL
  SALMONELLA: CONTROL
  MEDICAL SCHOOLS: MANAGEMENT AND FINANCING
  MEDICAL SCHOOLS: MANAGEMENT AND FINANCING
  YOUTH TRAINING GUARANTEE LIAISON OFFICERS
  YOUTH TRAINING GUARANTEE LIAISON OFFICERS
  OFFENDERS: EMPLOYMENT TRAINING
  OFFENDERS: EMPLOYMENT TRAINING
  PUPILS OVER 16 IN SCHOOLS: EDUCATIONAL MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE SPENDING
  PUPILS OVER 16 IN SCHOOLS: EDUCATIONAL MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE SPENDING
  PUPILS OVER 16 IN SCHOOLS: STATISTICS
  PUPILS OVER 16 IN SCHOOLS: STATISTICS
  GCSE: NEW GRADING SYSTEM
  GCSE: NEW GRADING SYSTEM
  UN POPULATION FUND: UK CONTRIBUTION
  UN POPULATION FUND: UK CONTRIBUTION
  MR. MORDECHAI VANUNU
  MR. MORDECHAI VANUNU