Sitting of 23 January 1991

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

    Telecommunications
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the telecommunications duopoly.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I have received more than 190 written responses to the consultative document on competition and choice in telecommunications. The vast majority firmly supported the document's main proposals.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Secretary of State aware that the 14 January deadline for submissions on the Government's consultation document has caused great consternation in the industry? Is two months long enough for comments on a document which proposes such fundamental changes to one of our most important industries—changes which the Government have considered for seven years?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is right that everyone had seven years' notice of the consultation. Forty companies made representations before I even published the consultation document. Six of the 190 companies made representations after the 14 January deadline and we shall do our best to consider any late representations.
    Dr. Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend think twice about proposals to allow British Telecom to deliver entertainment services to households? Those of us who want massive investment in cabling in Britain fear that that might be a threat by British Telecom to deter investment in the cable industry.
    Mr. Lilley: I shall, of course, consider very carefully my hon. Friend's remarks and the other representations on that issue that I have received as a result of the consultation process. The considerations that my hon. Friend mentioned are those which originally led me to make the proposal in the consultative document.
    Mr. Henderson: When will the Secretary of State be able to respond to the representations that he received in relation to the consultative paper? Does he agree with British Telecom that there can be no effective competition without firm regulation on matters such as the price of access of potential competitors to the BT network? Will the Secretary of State modify the proposals in his consultative paper to ensure that there is effective
    304
    regulation to protect the public interest and to protect a competitive environment, high technical standards, proper research and development and capital investment in the local loop?
    Mr. Lilley: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a firm date by which the conclusions will have been reached. I shall endeavour to do so as rapidly as is compatible with proper consideration of the representations. I do not want an unnecessarily long period of uncertainty. I agree that regulation is necessary, although competition is desirable. Under the previous arrangements for a nationalised industry with which the Labour Government were satisfied, there was no regulator. In the words of the Fabian Society, the nationalised industry was left to regulate itself. We prefer a privatised industry but a firrn regulatory authority and that is what we have.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when he considers the representations he will give greater weight—or at least equal weight—to the representations of user gorups and individual customers than to those of the massive formerly nationalised industry, which now puts so much pressure on the Government to stop free competition? Will equal access be speeded up so that more people can get into the telecommunications market and therefore force prices down through competition?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The consumer interest must and will be paramount. We place great emphasis on competition because that is the best way of ensuring the consumer interest, although, in some areas, as I said, regulation is essential to reinforce it With regard to my hon. Friend's point about equal access, I shall consider the responses to the proposal that I made in the document.

    Imports
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to reduce import penetration.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Department's policies aim to foster the competitiveness of British industry.
    Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware that, since 1979, import penetration in manufacturing industry has increased by 10 per cent., in chemicals by 12 per cent., in electronics by 21 per cent. and in computer and office equipment by 92 per cent? When will the Minister stop giving bland answers and support manufactures and manufacturing industry? Does he agree that on Friday our balance of payments deficit will be in excess of £15 billion?
    Mr. Sainsbury: Import penetration is a feature of advanced economies. Indeed, on the basis of OECD statistics, import penetration in the United Kingdom is a little less than that in Germany, which would imply that we are on a fairly level playing field.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that I represent a seat which is thoroughly concerned with manufacturing industry and that the vast majority of my constituents agree with me that the only way to beat

    305
    import penetration is for British industry to make products that can be sold successfully throughout the world?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As so often, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate British manufacturing industry on the great increase in productivity and exports that it achieved in the 1980s.
    Mr. Beggs: Is the Minister aware that a United Kingdom company that has supplied a proven product to United Kingdom ambulance services for the past four years has been excluded from a contract valued at £3·8 million? That contract was awarded in favour of an overseas competitor. Does the Minister agree that all Government Departments and those who spend public money must support our manufacturing industry and, when possible, award contracts to British companies? Will he seek the support of the Secretary of State for Health and hold an inquiry into how that contract has been awarded and, if possible, have it suspended during reappraisal?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad to be able to reasure the hon. Gentleman that more than 90 per cent. of the goods and services bought by the Government are from United Kingdom sources. Of course, the Government, as a purchaser, are looking to give the best possible value to the taxpayer.
    The contract to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to write to him about it.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: As a manufacturer involved in the manufacturing of consumer goods, does my hon. Friend agree that the bottom line is that the consumer should want to buy English or British produce because it is more attractive in terms of price and design? At the end of the day that is what manufacturing industry in this country must achieve if we are to reverse import penetration.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am glad that he mentions design as an important feature for a successful manufacturer and, of course, good service to the customer is also important. Being close to the market can be a great advantage to British manufacturers.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the CBI to discuss manufacturing industry.
    The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Ministers and officials from the Department of Trade and Industry regularly meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry. Last week I met CBI representatives on two occasions, once to discuss wider ownership and once to hear their views on pay and productivity.
    Mr. Hughes: With high interest rates costing industry £30 billion a year, with investment falling, with output down for each of the past seven months and with manufacturing redundancies running at 1,500 a week, is not it now time for the Government to take up the call of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in his
    306
    leadership election manifesto for a more interventionist policy by the Government to save manufacturing industry from extinction?
    Mr. Redwood: The adjustment to get down inflation has some costs. The CBI itself asked for membership of the exchange rate mechanism and the Government have adopted that discipline. It is very important, as the CBI is now telling its membership, for higher productivity that the adjustments should take place. There are many market opportunities and big export opportunities. Manufacturing exports are at record levels and there are many opportunities for import substitution. Many good companies in British industry are now addressing those matters to offer jobs and prosperity.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the decline in our manufacturing industry has directly led to our economy becoming extremely vulnerable? Does he further accept that the level of interest rates and the level at which we entered the exchange rate mechanism continue to contribute to the undermining of our manufacturing industry? Will he accept from me the sad news that several leading United Kingdom manufacturers in high technology are considering locating manufacturing plants in other countries in the European Community where the economic climate is much more advantageous?
    Mr. Redwood: There are many fine companies and industries in our manufacturing sector. They are doing much better than they did under Labour in the 1970s and they will continue to do so. The aerospace, pharmaceutical and motor car industries are finding many new opportunities. I welcome the great expansion in the motor car industry where output is running at about 1·3 million cars per annum compared with a low point of only 900,000 cars less than 10 years ago. That is welcome progress. Of course, the Government want the adjustment to a low-inflation, high-productivity economy to occur rapidly. The sooner that that adjustment takes place, the greater the success will be.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister share the concern felt by many that manufacturing output and investment are collapsing much more quickly than the Government predicted? Does he agree that that is partly due to the corporation tax system and its non-neutrality with regard to inflation? Will he and his colleagues urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reform the corporation tax system, for example, by increasing investment allowances to 40 per cent?
    Mr. Redwood: Corporation tax policy is a matter for the Treasury, not the Department of Trade and Industry. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman should know that corporation tax in Britain is one of the lowest in the free enterprise world. It is welcome that the tax burden is proportionately lower here. That may be a contributory factor to the large amount of inward investment which Britain has attracted in recent years. Many overseas countries and companies recognise that Britain is the place in which to invest and we intend to encourage such investment further.
    Mr. Devlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that today's refusal by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to allow the takeover of ICI Agricultural Chemicals by Kemira has come much too late? Does he agree that if it

    307
    had turned down Kemira's earlier bid for Fisons and if his Department had prevented that nationalised company from undercutting and wrecking the market in agricultural chemicals, many of my constituents would not face the prospect of unemployment as a result of today's announcement?
    Mr. Redwood: I hope that ICI finds some other solution for its agrochemical business, if there is a commercial and industrial way of doing so, because I want those jobs to be preserved. The MMC findings illustrate the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when, as a matter of policy, he drew the attention of the MMC to the possibility that bids from nationalised industries could be more damaging and less fair than other bids. In its two reports published today, the MMC illustrated that that can be the case. In the case that my hon. Friend mentioned it found against the deal partly because of anxieties about the conduct of nationalised companies. The Government are determined to see fair play in markets. Part of that fair play must be to make sure that nationalised companies do not abuse their position in capital, product or service markets to the detriment of British jobs and industry.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: But with manufacturing output down by £2 billion, manufacturing investment down 4 per cent., 100 companies going bankrupt every day and unemployment rising faster than anywhere else in western Europe, are not the Government, who began by provoking a manufacturing recession, causing yet another such recession far more severe than Ministers are prepared to admit? Is not it time that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, not just a junior Minister, spoke up for the needs of industry, ended the self-satisfied complacency and argued the case in Government, first, for a cut in interest rates and, secondly, for a budget for investment in industry?
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend speaks up well for British industry and is a great ally and friend of it. British industry is flourishing considerably more under this Government than it ever did under the Labour Government. Output in manufacturing is up, whereas it used to fall under the Labour Government, and our unemployment is considerably below the European average. Whenever something is adverse in comparison with Europe we hear about it all the time from Opposition Members, but that is not the case on unemployment because they know that we have a much better record than do some of our European partners.
    Last year, more new companies were created than fell on hard times. There was an extremely satisfactory rate of new company formation last year and we welcomed it as a sign of a flourishing enterprise economy.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is not it a credit to the increased efficiency of the British motor manufacturing industry—I pay particular credit to Rover in the west midlands—that, despite a decline in United Kingdom car sales, the export of British cars has been tremendous? That is largely due to the fact that we have achieved increased efficiency. As a result of the 44·7 per cent. increase in car exports those companies are now working to full capacity.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes her point extremely well. The British Government are extremely proud of the British motor industry and are proud of all those companies investing and located here. They have
    308
    made great strides in improving the quality and performance of their products. They now have a number of world-beating products that will continue to go from strength to strength on world markets.
    The latest figures for the export of motor cars are heartening. They show that the British economy can flourish based upon more exports to overseas markets where there are good opportunities for growth and based upon import substitution as, once again, British people back British products because they are well made and good.

    Trade (Germany)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the latest trade figures between Britain and Germany; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: In the first 11 months of 1990, United Kingdom visible exports to Germany were valued at £12 billion; imports from Germany were £18·5 billion. Compared with the similar period in 1989, exports are up by 18·5 per cent., while imports are virtually unchanged..
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister have the guts to tell us what the deficit was in 1979? Is he aware that the deficit between Britain and Germany was £1·6 billion when the Tories took over and that when the Government announce the figures on Friday, it will be £7·1 billion? No wonder the Germans told the Governor of the Bank of England to get lost yesterday. Is not it a sad reflection on this country that, after 1945 when everyone was throwing their caps in the air, the Government are now going cap in hand to the Germans? We know who the top dogs are now.
    Mr. Sainsbury: It appears that the hon. Gentleman has some reservations about the Government's economic policy. I should like to hear him pay tribute to the success of those parts of our industry that are exporting to Germany so effectively. Clothing industry exports have gone up 40 per cent. and medical and pharmaceutical exports are up 41 per cent. in the first II months of this year.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are immense opportunities for British companies in the former Soviet sector of Germany, now eastern Germany, particularly for the infrastructural industries of transport, telecommunications energy and water? Will my hon. Friend use the full resources of his Department to draw those opportunities for trade and investment to the attention of British companies?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He will be aware that an extremely successful seminar was held last week, jointly sponsored by my Department and the CBI, with the Treuhandanstalt. That seminar drew the attention of British industries to investment and trade opportunities with the former East German territories.
    Mr. Hoyle: But in relation to the deficit with Germany does the Minister ever go out and talk to manufacturers? If he does, what have they told him about going into the ERM at 2·9—almost 3—deutschmarks to the pound? [HON. MEMBERS: "You wanted it."' We did not want it at that figure. Those manufacturers would tell the Minister that it is not possible to be competitive at that rate. What is the Minister and the miserable team that he has round

    309
    him doing about that? I know that none of them has any experience of industry—the Minister for Trade was kept in the back office of the family firm. The Minister and his team should at least get out and, in the words of the former Prime Minister, back British industry, and tell the Treasury that it was wrong.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I make it my purpose to have contacts with industry nearly as close as those which I had when I spent 20 years in industry. I also assure the hon. Gentleman that, although it is sometimes suggested that a lower exchange rate would be helpful for exports, I frequently hear it suggested that a stable exchange rate and lower inflation are much more to be welcomed.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of manufacturing output for the past year; what was the level in previous years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): Figures for manufacturing output are not yet available for the whole of 1990. Provisional estimates show that manufacturing output in the first 11 months of 1990 averaged 1190, based upon 1985 equal to 100, similar to the record annual level of 1989.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the volume of manufacturing output increased by 8·5 per cent. during the first 11 months of 1990? Does my hon. Friend agree that that would not have happened had not our industry been made much more competitive as a result of the transformation achieved by the Government over the past 11 years—in terms of competitiveness and everything else?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the transformation of British industry in the last decade. Output, productivity, exports and investment are all well above their 1980 levels and exports are at a record level.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister agree that the steelworkers of Lanarkshire are only too willing to contribute to British manufacturing output—in particular the men of Ravenscraig, Clydesdale, Dalzell and Imperial who are losing their jobs? The Minister for Corporate Affairs tells people to buy British. When will he tell that to British Steel?
    Mr. Leigh: The prospects for British Steel have been transformed under this Government. Losses running into £1 billion in 1979, under the Labour Government, have been tranformed into profits of more than £600 million now. Opposition Members like to pose as friends of manufacturing industry. It is interesting that when they were last able to act on that friendship, manufacturing output fell.

    GATT
    Mr. Lester: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the Uruguay round of the GATT.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the likely results of a successful completion of the GATT negotiations.
    Mr. Lilley: We continue to press for the early resumption of talks, as a successful Uruguay round would include fully for the first time agriculture, services, textiles, intellectual property and investment as well as significant reductions in tariffs, quotas and other barriers and improvements in disciplines and safeguards. Such an outcome would be highly beneficial for the United Kingdom and would provide a much-needed noninflationary stimulus to the world economy. Failure would mean a return to protectionism, trade wars and beggar-my-neighbour policies.
    Mr. Lester: My right hon. Friend continues to press for a settlement of the Uruguay round. Although the House is now concentrating on the Gulf war, many of us are still concerned that the GATT round remains unresolved. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United States estimates that, by the end of the decade, non-inflationary growth in the world will amount to about $4 trillion? That would be of particular benefit not only to the United Kingdom but to many developing countries about which many of us are still deeply concerned.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The United States has estimated that, in terms of reductions in tariffs alone, a successful round would produce an extra $4 trillion of income in the world by the end of the century. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to point out the importance to third-world countries of a successful outcome to the Uruguay round as those countries, more than any others, need an open and buoyant world trading environment.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend will know that, before coming to this place, I spent my life in textiles and that I therefore have a deep interest in the outcome of GATT and in its effects on the multi-fibre arrangement and the textile industry. If there is a gap between agreement on GATT and the phasing out of the MFA, a dreadful vacuum will be created. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the textile industry about what he might do if such a vacuum were created?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance for the textile industry, in his constituency and more widely, of a successful outcome to the round. Failure to agree would mean that the existing multi-fibre arrangement would lapse in July of this year. That would be unacceptable to us, to the industry and to the world and would lead to the necessity for other arrangements. It would be better by far to have a successful conclusion to the GATT round by the target date of 1 March.
    Mr. James Lamond: Will the Secretary of State ensure that his remarks are conveyed to those negotiating on our behalf? He must have received the same anguished letters as we have from manufacturers who say that unless the GATT regulations are strengthened and enforced, doing away with the MFA will bring further problems for the textile industry, which is already very weak.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The embryonic agreement on textiles which would be available if we conclude the whole GATT round would

    311
    result in a transitional phasing out of the MFA over 10 years, which would be more acceptable than its precipitate ending in July. We have done all in our power—and I continue to consult colleagues in the European Community, as well as in other countries with whom we established close relationships during the Brussels week of negotiations—to urge an early resumption of talks.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the Government are bringing forward specific proposals which might lead to the resumption of the talks, which are vital to all who represent constituencies not only with textile interests, where we see redundancy after redundancy, but with agricultural interests which are important to the rural community?
    Mr. Lilley: The GATT negotiations are carried out by the European Commission on behalf of member states, so it is essential that the Commission should use its negotiating power to the full and that it should seek to get back to the negotiating table as rapidly as possible. We have pressed for that within the Community, as is widely recognised.
    Mr. Dickens: I am afraid that I cannot speak with great volume today. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) was right in his plea for the textile industry in the north-west. The round of negotiations is critical for thousands of textile workers in the area. I implore my right hon. Friend to make sure that he gets it right.
    Mr. Lilley: I never thought that I would have difficulty in hearing my hon. Friend. I entirely endorse his message that the industry is of great importance to the north-west. We are very concerned to ensure a proper settlement within GATT. There is the basis of an agreement which would be satisfactory, I think, to the textile industry; certainly it would be much more satisfactory than failure to agree.
    Ms. Quin: Has the Secretary of State seen the widespread criticism in the press of the Government's stance on agriculture within the European Community? Is he aware that agriculture accounts for 1·5 per cent. of our GDP while manufacturing, construction and financial services account for over 50 per cent? Surely the Government can find ways to help agriculture that do not put in jeopardy the major part of the economy.
    Mr. Lilley: I have not seen the widespread criticism. I recall the last Labour Prime Minister's son-in-law describing me as the hero of the GATT negotiations, but I do not think that that is what the hon. Lady was referring to. I have done all in my power, as have the whole Government, to bring about a successful conclusion to the talks, including success on the agricultural front.

    Lloyd's
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to review the self-regulation of Lloyd's of London.
    Mr. Redwood: The Neill committee in 1986 reviewed regulation at Lloyd's thoroughly. Its 70 recommendations have been implemented in full and I think that the new system now requires a period of stability.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He must be aware of the disquiet felt by people who are in dispute with Lloyd's because there is no form of independent appeals procedure. Will he express concern for my constituent, Mr. Cawen, who, after 25 years of exemplary service at Lloyd's, has been disbarred on a technical matter which would not occasion any form of prosecution in a court of law? Is my hon. Friend also aware that the United States Congress has expressed grave concern about the way in which Lloyd's is regulated? Will he therefore give an assurance that people in dispute with Lloyd's can look forward to a truly independent appeals system?
    Mr. Redwood: There is an appeals system within Lloyd's and a large number of independent members are involved in regulation at Lloyd's—indeed, they are in a majority. If my hon. Friend would like to pursue the case of her constituent, Lloyd's would be prepared to talk to her about it, if she has her constituent's consent in so doing—
    Mrs. Gorman indicated dissent.
    Mr. Redwood: I am telling the House today that I think that Lloyd's would be prepared to discuss the case with my hon. Friend if her constituent authorises her so to do. She is also welcome to come and see me about the matter, but regulation is for Lloyd's which has a system of regulation established under statute, and independence is an important characteristic in the appeals procedure.
    Ms. Mowlam: Is the Minister really as satisfied with the system at Lloyd's as his remarks just now seemed to suggest? Not only are there internal problems, as the horn. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) pointed out—she has tried to talk to Lloyd's, but the response from Lloyd's has been negative and the Minister's response unacceptable—but there are difficulties at Howden and, as the Minister is aware, a record number of years of books are outstanding at Lloyd's. Is that what the Minister regards as regulation working?
    Mr. Redwood: The new system at Lloyd's is much tougher than the old one. The recommendations are wide ranging, as the hon. Lady would know if she had done her homework. That system is now tackling the problems that arose before 1986 and the fundamental review. It is ridiculous for the hon. Lady to describe my reply as unacceptable when I have told my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that she can talk to me about the case in question and also to Lloyd's. What more can a Minister do than offer to talk through a particular case and to see whether Lloyd's can provide satisfactory answers for my hon. Friend, who needs to know both sides of the story?

    Postal Services
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the chairman of the royal mail to discuss the quality of postal services in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, regularly to discuss various matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Field: Is my hon. Friend aware that some post offices have run out of forces air mail letters? Will he promise to look into that shortage? Does he agree that the Post Office is doing an admirable job and playing a proper part in maintaining the morale of the forces in the Gulf, and none more so than the sub-post offices in our rural communities? Will he therefore ensure that those offices can compete on equal terms with Crown post offices in future?
    Mr. Leigh: On the latter point, we have received assurances from the Post Office that the sub-post offices will offer the full range of services provided by Crown post offices. Indeed, the Post Office Users National Council report seems to suggest that there is more satisfaction with the service at sub-post offices than with that at Crown post offices.
    As for my hon. Friend's first and important point, I emphasise that the Post Office has a comprehensive service of providing free aerogrammes to the Gulf—the blueys —and parcels can be sent to the Gulf at the same rate as the inland parcel rate. I was disturbed to hear what my hon. Friend said about some post offices not having blueys. When our troops are prepared to pay the supreme sacrifice, the Post Office must ensure that their loved ones can communicate with them easily. I shall write to the Post Office today.
    Miss Hoey: I am sure that the Minister is aware of this week's report by the Post Office Users National Council, which welcomes the significant improvement in people's feelings about how capably the post office has been handling first-class mail. Will he use this opportunity to state clearly once and for all—and to keep morale in the Post Office high—that the Post Office will not be privatised under this or any future Government?
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the Post Office Users National Council survey which shows that 86·2 per cent. of first class letters are being delivered the next day. As for her other point, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) gave a commitment, which stands for the present Parliament. As regards the future, however, we are open minded and will consider all suggestions.
    Mr. Soames: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons for the fairly dismal performance of the first class letter service is the extensive restrictive practices still carried out by the trade unions represented in the Post Office? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he intends to instruct the chairman of the Post Office to take to break this union power?
    Mr. Leigh: There have been some alarming cases of trade union industrial action which have resulted in a less than perfect service to Post Office customers. We keep these matters constantly under review. All options are open.

    Property Descriptions
    Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further steps he is considering to protect housebuyers from misleading property descriptions following his review of the Trade Descriptions Act.
    Mr. Leigh: As the then Minister told the House in several written answers last year, it is the Government's intention to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to apply its provisions to descriptions of real property. That remains the Government's intention, subject to parliamentary time being available. However, an order under the Estate Agents Act 1979, dealing with the misdescription of property, will be laid before the House as soon as possible. This is part of a package of measures to curb malpractices in estate agency which was announced last April by the then Minister and was the subject of a consultation document issued by my Department last year.
    Mrs. Adams: Does the Minister realise that, because of the Government's refusal to introduce their own legislation on this, they have left the door wide open for hundreds of unscrupulous estate agents to mislead thousands of home buyers? How can the Government justify their lack of action?
    Mr. Leigh: On the contrary, the Government have listened to a number of representations. My predecessor gave a commitment on behalf of the Government, which has necessitated a full consultation period during which a number of problems have come up; but if the hon. Lady had listened to my answer she would have heard me give a commitment. She may also be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) drew a high place in the ballot for private Members' Bills and intends to promote a Bill to deal with misdescription of property.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given the cost, inconvenience and occasional distress caused to house buyers by the more fanciful hyperbole of less scrupulous estate agents, will my hon. Friend agree that the measures shortly to be brought forward by the Government in regulations and in the private Member's Bill to which he referred are welcome not only for the benefit of consumers but for the benefit of the more responsible estate agents?
    Mr. Leigh: Yes. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the lacuna in the present law, in that the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 does not cover real property. We know this and intend to take action. We also intend to take action on the Estate Agents Act 1979. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] We have had to wait for time in the legislative programme, but, as I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West is bringing forward a Bill in the next few weeks which should cover the problem.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I know that the House will want to join me in wishing the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) a speedy recovery from his illness.
    Will the Minister tell the House why he has failed to give house buyers the protection that was promised in the Government's press statement on 19 June 1990 and which a Minister pledged to implement by the 1st of this month? Why is that protection not in place now nor likely to be in place for some months to come?
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman may be confused as between our determination to bring in primary legislation to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and secondary legislation under an order to amend the Estate Agents Act

    315
    1979. On the first of these, we must take our place in the legislative queue; on the second, the hon. Gentleman should wait and see.
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend should be congratulated on the answers that he has given to the House. Will he agree with me that, while it is necessary to say "caveat emptor", or "buyer beware", to anyone buying a good or service, the steps that my hon. Friend has outlined should be brought forward at the earliest opportunity to protect young people, who, as first-time buyers, may take estate agents' details at face value and be deluded into buying a property which is suspect in some way?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to these matters. The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West has not been published, but we agree with its aims, in so far as we know what they are, and hope that the Bill will become law.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.
    Mr. Leigh: The Government promote continued growth of manufacturing industry with policies such as reducing rates of tax on profits, privatisation, deregulation, elimination of restrictive practices, trade union reform and negotiations to reduce trade barriers through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and in the European Community. In addition, my Department continues to operate a range of schemes to improve business performance under the enterprise initiative.
    Mr. McFall: As manufacturing production has gone down by a staggering £2£5 billion in the past three months, 23,000 manufacturing workers are on short-time work, redundancies are running at more than 1,500 per week and high interest rates are costing British business £30 billion per year, when will the Government do the decent thing and either own up to their mistakes, overhaul their policy and start helping British industry or shut up shop and let the Labour party get on with the job of reviving British industry?
    Mr. Leigh: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no intention of shutting up shop, or of letting our industry fall into the tender hands of a party that managed to reduce manufacturing output when it was in power. The hon. Gentleman's list is entirely selective. He ignores the fact that the prospects for British industry have been transformed in the last decade in terms of output, productivity and investment. The cost of a 1 per cent. rise in interest rates, even sustained over a full year, is far less damaging to industry in terms of wage costs than a 1 per cent. rise in inflation. The Government are determined to lick inflation.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that this question shows that there is a good deal of ignorance about what Governments can and cannot do? The one thing that Governments certainly cannot do is to boost manufacturing output. However, they can create the right climate. Will my hon. Friend use his influence with the
    316
    Treasury to promote lower corporate and capital taxes for business to encourage it to make the decisions to expand and boost output?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right, and he well knows that corporation tax in Britain is among the lowest in the industrialised world. He is also right to say that we cannot simply boost output by increasing subsidies, as suggested by the Labour party; nor can we increase investment by piling up taxation. Inventiveness and hard work cannot be encouraged by imposing controls. Those are the policies of the Labour party, but they did not work in the past and will not work in the future.
    Dr. Moonie: If the Government are not responsible for the mess that industry is in, who is?
    Mr. Leigh: Industry is not in a mess. As I have said, the prospects for manufacturing industry have been transformed in the last decade. Output, productivity investment and exports are well above 1980 levels and exports are at a record level. I do not mind repeating that message, because we are proud of it.

    Company Profitability
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of Stale for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the rise in the profitability of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies during the 1980s.
    Mr. Lilley: The profitability of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies recovered strongly during the 1980s and is now back to the levels of the early 1970s. The net real rate of return on capital employed was 8·3 per cent. in 1989, nearly half as high again as in 1979. The restoration of profitability has made possible increased investment in plant, research and development, and training.
    Mr. Nicholson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that that achievement has been brought about largely by the massive improvement in productivity in the past decade, which for manufacturing has been better than that of any of our competitors? Does he also agree that the 45 per cent. improvement in business investment during the first three years of this Parliament bodes well for future profits? Will he confirm that a recent survey by 3i shows that 80 per cent. of the 750 largest companies thought that they were in better shape to prosper now than they were in the 1980s?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Productivity rose by half in the past decade, which was faster than the position in any other major country in the world, including Japan. Profitability is the key to success, and the restoration of productivity leads companies to spend more on investment, research and development, and training.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not the profitability of car manufacturers increase if they could sell more vehicles in Japan? What is the position? Is a British manufacturer of cars allowed to sell motor vehicles in Japan directly through a distributing agent to the public or does the British manufacturer have to go through a trading company, in the same way as Nissan at present has to go through one in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lilley: Our exports in total to Japan have nearly doubled in the past three years. That includes a rapid rise in exports of motor cars, not least by the Rover company whose share of total imports of cars into Japan has risen significantly in the past five years and is rising at least as fast as that of other manufacturers. By and large, they are free to use whichever distribution channel they wish. There is a proposal by the Japanese Government to refer sole agencies to their anti-trust procedures. Last week I protested to them that they should not take that course, unless they also refer restrictive distributive practices by domestic manufacturers.

    Aerospace Products
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of exports of aerospace products to the United States of America for the last full year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Aerospace products are included in a number of trade classifications. It is estimated, however, that the value of aerospace exports to the USA in 1989 was about £.1·5 billion.
    Mr. Colvin: Those exports far exceed imports, which shows the value of the aerospace industry to this country's balance of payments. Is my hon. Friend aware that aerospace products are usually priced in dollars, that the value of the pound against the dollar is currently unrealistically high and locked into the exchange rate mechanism, and that British aerospace companies therefore have the alternative either of selling products at a loss or of exporting manufacturing jobs? Is he aware that tens of thousands of jobs are at stake to dollar countries, such as the United States of America and Canada? The German Government have a Government-funded insurance scheme to cover exchange rate contingencies. Will my hon. Friend undertake to investigate that scheme and consider introducing a similar scheme in this country?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to an industry which in the past decade of Conservative government has doubled both productivity and turnover in real terms. In addition, it has trebled its exports—an achievement to which we should all pay tribute. As my hon. Friend will know, the dollar weakness affects all other currencies, not just the pound sterling. He referred to a particular German scheme. We are very keen that our industries should be able to compete on a level playing field, although that is perhaps not quite the right metaphor for the aerospace industry. My hon. Friend may be aware that there are doubts about whether the scheme to which he referred is permissible under GATT rules and I understand that it is the subject of a formal complaint to the GATT subsidies code panel.
    Mr. Cryer: Everyone hopes that hostilities in the Gulf will end quickly. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the long-term viability of the aerospace industry depends on the development of civil projects and that we should not depend on military expenditure solely, to the exclusion of virtually all other projects in the United Kingdom? Will the Minister express a sympathetic view to any approaches from the industry to support civilian ventures in the same way and to the same massive extent as the Government pours money into military ventures?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Member that we by no means depend on military aviation. We have had a number of notable successes in civil aviation. For example, GEC was awarded a contract to supply fly-by-wire systems for the Boeing 707; Rolls-Royce is taking a market share in the United States. The United States airline, America West, has signed an agreement with Airbus Industrie for the purchase of A320s. The civil aerospace industry is doing extremely well and I hope that it will continue to do so.

    Telecommunications
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress in liberalising the telecommunications market.
    Mr. Lilley: The Government have taken steps to introduce competition in all sectors of telecommunications. We now have the two largest cellular telephone networks in the world, the first telepoint services, and we are leading the world in the introduction of personal communications networks. Since British Telecom was privatised, quality of service has increased dramatically, prices have fallen by over 20 per cent. in real terms, and Mercury Communications has become established as a serious competitor. I made further proposals in the duopoly review for liberalisation to increase competition and choice for the consumer.
    Mr. Butler: I welcome the additional competition and liberalisation in this country. Will my right hon. Friend now apply himself to overcoming the trade barriers to our manufacturers in Europe and Japan?
    Mr. Lilley: I have just visited Japan, where I had talks with the trade Minister, aimed at liberalising trade. In particular, I encouraged him to take the big ticket items where Japan has a tendency to favour American rather than British imports.
    We have sought liberalisation in other markets. We believe that one of the fruits of the liberalisation of our markets is that our manufacturers and telecommunications companies will be better placed to participate in those markets when they catch up with us, as they are beginning to do.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the liberalisation of the telecommunications market that he proposes, and which I welcome, will nevertheless have a substantial—perhaps dramatic—impact on some existing and future players in that market? In that context, is he considering the use of techniques such as computer modelling to ascertain what the effect is likely to be? Such an exercise would help us to judge what his proposals should be.
    Mr. Lilley: The duopoly review that I presented was a joint initiative with Sir Bryan Carsberg, Director-General of Oftel. His organisation has carried out the sort of modelling that my hon. Friend suggested to consider the impact of various regulatory and deregulatory proposals. We have endeavoured to take into account that line of reasoning.

    Accounting and Auditing Practices
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review accounting and auditing practices in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Redwood: The Companies Act 1989 made important changes in the law on company accounts, including improvements to the enforcement of accounting standards. It also provided a new regulatory framework for company auditors. The new Financial Reporting Council, Accounting Standards Board and Financial Reporting Review Panel have been established. Arrangements are in hand to strengthen and widen representation on the Auditing Practices Board. I shall be taking a close interest in how those changes work in practice.
    Mr. Cousins: Is the Minister aware that his amazing smugness and complacency about the likely effect of the Companies Act 1989 flies in the face of experience? Is not the wide talk of profits for companies now largely fiction and a matter of opinion, with figures being massaged by standard accountancy techniques? Is the Minister further aware that such a state of affairs is not in the interests of the accountancy profession, the companies concerned or the reputation of Britain as an industrial centre?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have tabled 436 questions on accountancy in the past two years, but they seem to have learnt nothing about the enormous strides that the profession is taking in improving the regulatory framework. They have not understood the important provisions in the Companies Act 1989 which began the debate. Rarely have so many questions been asked by so few hon. Members to try to do damage to one profession. I wish that the Opposition would lay off the profession, because their intention is malevolent. If they did that, they would recognise that the profession has extremely high standards and that, wherever those standards might lapse, disciplinary and regulatory action is being taken.
    Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that United Kingdom accounting and auditing practices are the envy of much of the world, especially in eastern Europe where many British accounting firms now have offices doing a considerable amount of work? Is my hon. Friend also aware that the Companies Act 1989, which his Department brought into being, has set up a substantial
    320
    regulatory framework to ensure that our accounting profession stays at the top compared with the rest of the world? Can my hon. Friend give any reason to explain why the Opposition continue to knock the United Kingdom accountancy profession?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right. The hon. Member did not need to table 436 very expensive and time-consuming questions in order to grasp the main point —that British accountants are doing extremely well in many world markets. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to eastern Europe where British accountants' skills are highly prized and where they have been spearheading export efforts in the service industries. I wish I could explain the reason for this persistent campaign by Opposition Members, but they will have to speak for themselves.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Salmondasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his current estimate of the capacity of, and employment in, the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Leigh: Around 28,000 are employed in shipbuilding in the United Kingdom, of whom about 6,500 are in merchant shipbuilding. Merchant shipbuilding capacity is 205,000 compensated gross tonnes. Comparable figures are not available for warshipbuilding.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister come clean with the House and admit that the Government's policy proposals under the seventh directive will accelerate the decline in the shipbuilding industry? Can he point to even one policy measure from this Government which will arrest and reverse that decline rather than making the industry's problems worse?
    Mr. Leigh: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, it is in the interests of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry for subsidies to be reduced. That is why we argued for a reduction in the intervention funding and why it has been agreed to reduce it from 20 per cent. to 13 per cent. for large ships and to 9 per cent. for small ships. That reduction is in the interests of the United Kingdom because we have led the way in restructuring European shipbuilding. It will be particularly helpful to warship-building yards such as Cammell Laird and Swan Hunter.

Israel (Missile Attack)
3.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice):To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on the latest Iraqi missile attack on Israel.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Last night, and once again, Tel Aviv came under missile attack from Iraq. Latest statements by the Isreali Government indicate that, because of this attack, three people are dead and 98 are injured.
The House will endorse last night's statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He said that he was appalled by this further savage attack on civilians. He expressed this country's deepest sympathy to the bereaved, to those who are hurt and to their families, and this House agrees.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated our hope that, even now, the Government of Israel would show the forbearance that they have so far demonstrated and not give Saddam Hussein the satisfaction of drawing Israel into the conflict. This message was passed to the Government of Israel last night.
Israel is, of course, entitled to defend herself: that is not at issue. The question is whether it is in her interest to retaliate. We believe that it is not. To do so would be to play Saddam Hussein's game without in our view adding to Israel's security. I therefore hope that Israel, her Government and her people will continue to show the same patient and courageous restraint that they have already displayed in the face of outrageous provocation.
Mr. Kaufman: We on this side condemn this latest attack as a sign of the wickedness and desperation of Saddam Hussein. It is an act of wickedness to fire missiles armed with explosives at a country that is not involved in the war now taking place and is not involved in the dispute which led to the war. It is especially wicked to aim missiles at heavily populated centres where civilian casualties are inevitable. No doubt Saddam Hussein is proud that he has claimed the lives of three elderly, innocent women. We extend our sympathy to the bereaved families and to all the people of Israel in their ordeal and in their continuing anxiety.
It is an act of desperation to fire the missiles because no one with confidence in his war prospects would continue this cynical attempt to distort the issues in the war by trying to drag Israel into it. In any case, the Syrian and Egyptian Governments have shown that they do not intend to be taken in by those bloodthirsty manoeuvrings.
The Israeli Government deserve respect and admiration for refusing to fall into Saddam Hussein's trap. I trust that they will continue to maintain their self-restraint, without any bargain struck to win that self-restraint and difficult though it must be not to yield to the understandable impulse to hit back.
Saddam Hussein will lose the war, and the attacks will end. Peace will come to the middle east, and Israel must be part of that peace.
Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that there can be nothing worse for Jewish people than to be facing the prospect in a Jewish state of gas attacks and that such a thing is almost beyond belief after the Nazi holocaust? In expressing his concern and support for the state of Israel, as he did so well, will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Americans will do everything possible, with Patriot missiles and other means, to help the Israelis to defend their air space?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The people of Israel can feel certain that the countries of the coalition will do all in their power to defend the people of Israel against this kind of attack.
Sir David Steel: On behalf of my colleagues, I join in extending sympathy to the people of Israel in their present suffering. Will the Minister accept that not least of that suffering, apart from the deaths and injuries that have occurred, is the knowledge that they live from day to day and from hour to hour under threat of the most horrific and random terror from Iraq? Will he convey to the Israeli Government the admiration of some of us who have criticised their policies in the past of the fact that they will not fall for the ploy of Saddam Hussein's intended retaliation?
Mr. Hogg: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As the Government of Israel will know, there have been differences between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Israel on previous occasions, but on this matter the House, the Government, feel nothing but respect and admiration for the forbearance that has been shown by the Government and people of Israel.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Israelis have already gained much by staying out of the conflict? They have gained sympathy across the world, they have the Patriot defence system in place, and they have gained considerable understanding in Arab nations, which must be to their advantage in the long term.
Mr. Hogg: The people of Israel indeed have the respect of the British people; and I imagine that the people of Israel will also admire the fortitude that has been shown by the Arab members of the coalition, who have made it plain that, notwithstanding the brutal attack on a civilian target, they will stand firm against Saddam Hussein.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept that in a democratic country people will expect to be defended by their Government on whom there will be great pressures? Will he pay tribute to the way in which the Israeli Government have resisted deliberate political attempts to link their future with a war that was not of their making and is not of their prosecution?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is right. The war was not of the making of the people or the Government of Israel. They have been subjected to unprovoked attacks against civilian targets. A sovereign state, the state of Israel, has the right to defend herself. The question is whether it is in her interests to retaliate, and we do not believe that it is.
Mr. David Sumberg: Is it not right to point out that every day our young and brave pilots are trying to minimise Iraqi civilian casualties while the Iraqi

323
regime rain down upon innocent men, women and children death and destruction? Let us as a House salute the bravery, fortitude and restraint of the people and Government of Israel.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has drawn a very important point to the attention of the House. The allied forces—in particular, the pilots—have taken enormous care to avoid causing unnecessary civilian casualties. Indeed, the latest estimate from the Iraqis bears this out. Such cannot be said of Saddam Hussein, who has launched Scud attacks against cities. By their nature, Scud attacks are undirected and indiscriminate. This is terror bombing of civilian targets.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister accept that it is for Israel's Government to decide, after listening to all advice, and on the basis of all intelligence, what to do to protect their own people? Does he accept also that it is totally unrealistic to expect the Israeli Government to allow their people to be submitted to a series of barbarous and monstrous attacks without taking retaliatory action?
Mr. Hogg: I accept that the state of Israel has a right to strike if it believes that it is necessary to do so. There is no question about that. What is at stake is whether it would be in the interests of the people of Israel to strike back. Of course, that is a matter for the Government of Israel. However, we can advise—indeed, we do advise—and we hope that the Government of Israel will respond to our advice.
Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend convey to the people of Israel the sense of outrage of the people of this nation, whose civilian population have suffered the horrors of indiscriminate aerial bombardment? Will he convey our feelings of solidarity with the people of Israel at this time? Will he make it clear that we are determined not just to liberate the nation of Kuwait but also to smash the Iraqi war machine, which poses such a threat to the civilian populations of both Israel and Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Hogg: This country and its people suffered the consequences of indiscriminate bombing 50 years ago. We know what it means and, therefore, our hearts go out to the people of Israel.
Mr. Jim Sillars: I associate my colleagues and myself with the condemnation of the vicious and malicious attack that resulted in the deaths of people in Tel Aviv. May I ask the Minister, however, to reconsider his agreement in total with the statement made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? Is he not aware that this was not an act of desperation by Saddam Hussein but, rather, a key part of a very important political strategy? However despicable we in the west may find yesterday's attack, the harsh fact of life is that it deepens and widens Saddam's support at popular level in the Arab world. Does not that demonstrate clearly the west's political weakness in failing to recognise that until we take early action to convene a middle east peace conference we shall be liable to lose the political battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab people?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point when he says that broader issues have to be tackled.
324
They are urgent matters, and they will be tackled. It is very important indeed that the problems with regard to Palestine and the related issue of how Israel's security is to be assured be settled. The western countries will address these matters very urgently. However, they are not linked to this conflict; they are separate and distinct. We must stand on principle, and the requirement here is to remove Iraq from Kuwait absolutely.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Do not the destructive events in Tel Aviv last night provide a glaring contrast between the moral and military approach in the middle east of on the one hand the allied policy of confining action against military and strategic targets and not the civilian population—a policy that the Iraqis admit has caused only 41 fatalities to date—and on the other hand the Iraqi policy of indiscriminately hitting centres of civilian population not only in Israel but also in Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. The use of Scud missiles is the use of a terror weapon.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I entirely support the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The Minister was right to say that those missiles, by their very nature, are undirected and indiscriminate. That demonstrates Saddam Hussein's lack of concern for the Israeli-Arab population in Israel. Given that Saddam Hussein still retains the ability to lauch indiscriminate attacks on Israel and the west bank and Gaza, will the Minister discuss with the Israeli ambassador in London how those prisoners who are held in the Negev desert and living in tents can be protected from indiscriminate attacks? If the Government have any spare gas masks that might fit young people under the age of 15, could they be supplied to the Israeli Government because they are having difficulty in providing masks to young Palestinians under the age of 15?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is important and I shall reflect on it. In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can say, yes indeed. We must bear in mind another interesting point. Saddam Hussein says that he is a great respecter of Muslim holy places, but we must remember that Scud missiles are perfectly capable of destroying mosques and other holy places. What credit do we give to such a man?
Sir Anthony Grant: Although I condemn the disgraceful attack which was borne so courageously by the Israeli people, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is very important not to get the power of the Scud missile out of all proportion? It can be countered. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with an article in The Times today which pointed out that the Scud missile, rather like the Stuka dive bomber in the second world war, is as much a psychological as a military weapon? Is it not important to state that the users of Scud missiles will as assuredly be defeated as were the users of the Stuka dive bombers in the last war?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. The Scud missille can indeed be countered and, for the most part, has been countered, largely by Patriot missiles. I also agree that it is largely a psychological weapon. However, last night it

325
killed three civilians, and Scud missiles have injured a large number of innocent civilians. That tells us a great deal about Saddam Hussein.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that, as I represent the people of Belfast who have suffered indiscriminately from terror, and the birthplace of the president of Israel, our sympathy goes out to the president and to the people of Israel at this time? Does he also accept that it is a foolish person who does what his enemy wants him to do in a conflict, and we commend the Israelis' restraint?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, more than most people, understands the impact of indiscriminate bombing. The people of Israel will be grateful for what has been said.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I very much hope that the Government of Israel will not play Saddam Hussein's game.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. I will allow two more questions from each side of the House and then we must make progress.
Miss Emma Nicholson: We welcome yesterday's announcement of the setting up of the Gulf trust for the families of the service men and women who are defending freedom. Will my hon. and learned Friend today underscore our deep distress and our support for Israel during her latest trauma by offering aid to her children, perhaps through Children and Youth Aliyah, which is the children's arm of the Zionist organisation helping children in Israel? Will my hon. and learned Friend subsequently assist hon. Members like me who I know will want to go further and form some kind of a trust for the children of the people who will be our former enemies—the Iraqi children—because in the immortal lines of Bernard Shaw, "I have no enemies under seven"?
Mr. Hogg: Not only that, but we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Our quarrel is with Saddam Hussein and those who stand behind him. The first part of my hon. Friend's question involves detailed proposals, and I shall be very happy to discuss them with her.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that there have been and will be many more wholly innocent victims of the escalating conflict in the middle east and that the House will wish to express its sympathy to those in that area, including those in Tel Aviv? Is he aware also that the great danger now is an escalation and extension of the conflict in which Israel and Jordan and perhaps other countries may be involved? As that represents a distinct threat to international peace and security, will he refer the latest incident to the Security Council so that it can meet to consider the full implications of what is now happening in the middle east conflict?
Mr. Hogg: That there has been an extension of the conflict is true, but the extension takes the form of Saddam Hussein attacking Israel, which country is not party to that dispute.
Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the indiscriminate bombing of civilians is the most baseless and deplorable action in war? Will he reaffirm that, in pursuing victory in this war, in no circumstances will the allies target civilian targets?
Mr. Hogg: Very careful instructions have been given to the commanders in the field to take great care to avoid unnecessary civilian targets and also to avoid cultural and religious sites of significance. Indeed, it is quite plain that coalition pilots have either not attacked because they thought that they might threaten such targets or have actually risked their lives to reduce the risk to those targets.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I endorse everything that has been said about the cynical and indiscriminate attacks on Israel. However, I urge the Minister and the House not to lose sight of the fact that fully 800 people have been killed by the Israelis in their oppression of territories occupied in flagrant contravention of United Nations resolutions for 23 years. In view of that, whatever happens in the aftermath of these incidents —I hope that the coalition will hang together—can our Arab allies in the coalition depend on the United Kingdom Government to press for urgent action following the resolution of the conflict to satisfy the just demands of the Palestinian people?
Mr. Hogg: We are very conscious that wider issues must be tackled. They include how one best provides for self-determination for the Palestinian people. They also include, of course, how one assures a safe and secure future for the state of Israel. They are vital matters, and we shall consider them as soon as we can.
Mr. Michael Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

BILLS PRESENTED
  COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE
  Mr. Secretary Wakeham, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. John Selwyn Gummer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. Colin Moynihan, presented a Bill to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 and, in the Coal Industry Act 1975, section 2(4) and paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 1; to make provision for imposing further obligations on the British Coal Corporation, including obligations corresponding to those voluntarily accepted by them under their code of practice concerning compensation for subsidence damage; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
  BUILDING CONVERSION AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
  Mr. Robin Squire, supported by Sir Richard Body, Mr. Peter Rost, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Terry Davis, presented a Bill to require the insulation against heat loss of dwelling units provided by the conversion of existing dwellings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second Time on Friday 19 April and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Ordered,
That the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Points of Order
3.52 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for rising when you were on your feet. Will you acknowledge that the policy of private notice questions or ministerial statements followed by plenty of time for questions by Back-Bench Members, rather than full-blown debates at regular intervals, might be a better way for the House to respond to events in the Gulf as they unfold?
Mr. Gavin Strang: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has a responsibility to give maximum opportunities to all Members of Parliament to participate in debates about what is happening. If nothing else, we owe that to our service men. We also have a responsibility to do so because one of the fundamental distinctions between this country and Iraq is that we actually support a parliamentary democracy.
I plead with you, Mr. Speaker, that the House must have more days to debate the issue. We must have longer time to debate statements. This afternoon we had 20 minutes to debate the attack on Israel. That is inadequate time. I strongly appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to give hon. Members a full opportunity in the coming weeks, or even months, to speak their minds on this crucial issue.
Mr. Speaker: It is a continuing situation and the hon. Gentleman has had that opportunity. He has made a speech in a recent debate. There are business questions tomorrow, and he can put his question to the Leader of the House then.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection that at 10.30 pm yesterday a request was made by several hon. Members for a statement on not only the attack on Tel Aviv and the loss of a Tornado but on what proposals have been made, if any, to do something about the Al-Wafra oilfield which is ablaze. We asked for an answer on who will put out the fires. Are they to be allowed to damage the planet for the foreseeable future? Could you not use your influence to ask the Government to make statements on serious matters which will not wait until after the weekend?
Mr. Speaker: I allowed a private notice question today on a subject submitted to me. The matter now raised by the hon. Gentleman was not submitted.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm for my benefit and that of other people that you granted a private notice question today and that, contrary to what we were led to believe by the Leader of the House last night, the Government did not offer to make a statement? If they had done so, questions would have run for much longer and everyone who wished to speak would have been called. Will you confirm that you were restricted by the rule of the House which states that on private notice questions only six or seven hon. Members from each side should be called?
Mr. Speaker: I was in the Chair last night, but I did not hear the Leader of the House promise that a statement would be made today. He said that he would take the

329
request into consideration. The House should understand that a private notice question is an extension of Question Time. This is a continuing situation.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not take any more points of order. The hon. Gentleman has overstayed his welcome.

Water Requirements (Planning)
3.56 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require a person seeking planning permission for a new building to send an estimate of the annual water requirement of the building to the area water company at the same time as submitting the application for planning permission to the planning authority.
This is a conservation measure. Water literally surrounds us all. Hon. Members will be surprised, amazed or delighted to hear that they themselves are 62 per cent. water. Even on this side of the House, the dries just as much as the wets are 62 per cent. water. So it is clear that we all have a great affinity to water. Estate agents are well aware of that. They know full well that a house which overlooks the sea, a lake, a pond or a river will command a premium price. Water is attractive to us all.
However, water is considerably more valuable than simply for looking at. Indeed, in the jargon of the age, water is one of our most precious natural resources. We wash in it. We wash our cars with it. We wash our dishes and our clothes in it. We fill paddling pools with it for our children. We put it on our gardens. I believe that some people even drink it. It is because water is so popular that I hope to obtain leave to introduce my Bill today.
People say that there is plenty of water in the tap, but they do not realise how much they consume. For example, flushing a lavatory takes two gallons. Running a bath takes 18 gallons, or more if one likes to lie in the bath for a long time until the water goes cold and one must let some out and put some more hot in. A washing machine cycle takes 25 gallons of water. A typical household uses 105 gallons of water a day, while a hosepipe or sprinkler uses no less than 220 gallons an hour.
On top of that, it takes one gallon of water to make a pint of beer. It takes 100 gallons of water to make a ton of concrete. It takes 1,000 gallons of water to produce a tonne of steel and it takes 6,600 gallons of water to produce a car —although my figures do not specify whether that would be a Metro or a Rolls-Royce.
The demand for water is increasing all the time. In 1974, total use was 15,000 megalitres per day, while last year it was nearly 17,500 megalitres per day. I apologise for suddenly changing from gallons to megalitres, but it was quite beyond my capacity to convert megalitres into gallons. Besides, megalitres sounds much more impressive.
All that water must come from somewhere. It is derived from various sources, mainly boreholes, reservoirs and rivers. Such is the demand, however, that many sources are becoming seriously depleted. For example, the Rivers Allen and Piddle in Dorset and the Kennet in Berkshire are being ruined. They are beautiful, lovely, living things. What can be more beautiful than a river?
Aquifers are being pumped and, as a result, bores and springs are drying up. In Wiltshire, some bores have not run for many years—due not only to drought but to water usage. The situation is becoming intolerable.
My Bill has two objectives: first, to try to bring home to people how much water a building consumes, in the hope that, in this supposedly conservation-minded age, they will design into buildings as many water-saving devices as possible; and, secondly, to enable water authorities to plan ahead.

331
I have received comments from several water authorities on my proposals. South West Water supports those two main objectives. It says:
"There is no doubt of the importance of making our customers aware of the cost and value of the water required to support their proposals, and any advance information which can be provided to the water companies is extremely useful for planning purposes."
North West Water stated:
"It is helpful for customers and potential customers to be more aware of their requirements for water and, of course, we are always keen to know as soon as possible of potential new demand for our services."
Severn Trent Water stated:
"It is a very good idea, and should be extended not only to the erection of a building, but to any change or alteration in any building that requires planning permission."
Southern Water stated:
"It would be of assistance if your proposals could be extended so that notification is given also to the sewerage undertaker."
Welsh Water said:
"We have long felt that any planning applications should be formally referred to ourselves for all the obvious reasons".
Northumbria Water stated:
"Consultation with water undertakers has become more tenuous as we are no longer statutory consultees under the Town and Country Planning legislation."
It welcomed my proposed strengthening of the planning legislation.
I believe that the Bill would promote the conservation of water. It would also represent an excellent tool to enable water authorities to plan ahead. I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugo Summerson, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mr. Tony Banks, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. William Hague, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Tony Favell.

Water Requirements (Planning)
  WATER REQUIREMENTS (PLANNING)
  Mr. Hugo Summerson accordingly presented a Bill to require a person seeking planning permission for a new building to send an estimate of the annual water requirement of the building to the area water company at the same time as submitting the application for planning permission to the planning authority: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April and to be printed. [Bill 58.]
Orders of the Day
  Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill
    New Clause 1

      SUBSTITUTED AMOUNTS: COLLECTION FUND
      `( ) (1) The following section shall be inserted after section 35 of the 1988 Act—
      "35a.—(1) For the purposes of Section 35(5) above, where the Secretary of State determines to make an order in respect of a charging or precepting authority under sections 104(2) or 106(2) below, as a result of which it is required to set a substitute amount under section 35(4) above, he shall, before laying a draft of any such order under sections 104(8) or 106(4), lay before Parliament an estimate of the losses likely to be incurred to the collection fund of any authority referred to in such an order as a result of the setting by it of a substituted amount.
      (2) Any estimate laid before Parliament under subsection (1) above shall be notified to the authority concerned.
      (3) Any estimate laid under subsection (1) above shall have regard to any information received from the authority regarding sums likely to be received by it in respect of its community charges by the date on which the order is expected to be laid.
      (4) In laying any estimate under this section, the Secretary of State shall specify—

      (a) an estimate of the additional community charge in the following financial year likely to result from the losses estimated under subsection (1) above; and

      (b) a schedule of the reductions in services which the Secretary of State considers the authority would be likely to be required to make equivalent to any such loss".'.

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.4 pm
      Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We have tabled the new clause because we cannot separate the Bill from the shambles of the Government's policy on the poll tax and poll tax capping generally. It is designed to deal with the situation arising out of a substitute bill to be set by the Government consequent on a capping order. We now know from the statement of the Secretary of State last Thursday that the bills that will go out next year will be related directly to the rates that were previously set. The formula involves a £104 difference between the old rates and the assumed bill for the current year plus whatever is levied by the local authorities for the coming financial year.
      The Secretary of State not only controls the "assumed" bills but, under the capping arrangements, he controls the bills that will go out next April. He controls both future and present arrangements. It should be left to the authority to try to justify the charge that it thinks should be levied in relation to a given level of services, which the Government are to determine for each individual authority.
      Matters are made far worse by the fact that the standard spending assessment formulas which the Secretary of State confirmed on Thursday will he

      333
      unchanged, are universally acknowledged to be flawed. The assessment of need, the distribution of grants, the fixing of bills and the determination of capping are all in the hands of a Government who decline under the present Bill to take into account known information that would allow logical decisions to be made about the level of services and the raising of cash to contribute to the collection fund. That is why I described the Government's policy as a shambles. I would have called it a dog's dinner, but the dog takes offence at such remarks.
      Things would not be so bad if the Government were willing to accept the new clause, thus acknowledging that those who are in control of decision-making should recognise the need to obtain the maximum up-to-date information on which to base their decisions. The new clause would require them to do that. The Government want to take responsibility for the benefits, as they see them, of poll tax capping and for the new relief scheme, but they do not want to take responsibility for the circumstances relating to the collection fund and consequently for the cuts involved in capped authorities and their effects on residents and citizens.
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman referred to a shambles and to decisions that have to be made by decision-makers. Will he comment on the shambles in many Labour-controlled authorities, one of which is Islington? A QC's report on Islington council said:
      "Having the cash office staffed by the innumerate, the filing done by the dyslexic and disorganised, and reception by the surly or charmless seems to us a recipe for administrative chaos."
      That is where the chaos surrounding the community charge really lies—with Labour local authorities which could not organise a celebration in a brewery. Will the hon. Gentleman now address the real problem?
      Mr. Blunkett: I think that some Conservative Members know more about celebrations in breweries and the consequences for their party funds than they do about decentralised offices in Islington. I might put on record in relation to Islington the fact that the Prime Minister made a remark yesterday, in answer to questions about empty housing in Islington, which was grossly inaccurate. Islington has one of the best records in London on vacancies; they now run at less than 2 per cent., which compares extremely favourably with the operation of Government Departments.
      Mr. Eric Illsley: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) quoted counsel's opinion on a collection office in Islington which stated that it was manned by people who were innumerate and dyslexic. I believe that he was using the terms in a derogative fashion. Will my hon. Friend confirm that "dyslexic" describes people who have a medical condition and is not a term of insult?
      Mr. Blunkett: Yes. I hope that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) will withdraw that. Although none of us wants circumstances in which those who are operating decentralised offices are alleged to be innumerate, all of us accept that dyslexia is an educational medical condition, but that it can be overcome, as
      334
      Conservative Members well know. I give credit to those who have overcome the problem, not least on the Government Benches.
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman asked me to withdraw what I said. I do not think that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) understood my point. I was not making disparaging remarks about dyslexics. I was quoting a report by a Queen's counsel on the way in which Islington council chooses to organise its affairs. Whatever one may say about the handicaps of dyslexics, to put them in charge of operations such as filing seems a curious way to help them. It is the condemnation of the Labour council which matters. That is the point to which the hon. Gentleman should respond, but which he will seek to avoid.
      Mr. Blunkett: It is not a point that I seek to avoid. I made it clear that people who are innumerate should not be dealing with the administration of area offices, whether or not QCs have done an investigation. Dyslexia does not come into it, whether it is in the Department of the Environment or a decentralised office in Islington. I take considerable offence at the idea that the two conditions are synonymous.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday about housing in Islington. In the light of what he said, will he comment on the eight flats rented from private landlords by the council at great expense—using Government money—which were kept empty by the council for between 40 and 83 weeks? Is that how the council uses Government money to help homeless people?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is being very generous in giving way. I am sure that he will not be deflected from new clause 1.
      Mr. Blunkett: I certainly will not.
      Lettings, whether on a leasing arrangement that is being set aside or direct from the housing revenue account, are not the responsibility of the House. There is a direct relationship between the electors of the borough and those they elect. The point of the new clause is that those who have responsibility should be accountable for the decisions that they take. Through the clause, we seek to ensure that those who have the temerity to take decisons about poll tax levels, capping provisions and the necessary resources to meet a given level of service should be accountable for their decisions and should seek the maximum information on which to base their decisions.
      Otherwise—I come back to where I left off earlier—the Government will be happy to take responsibility for fixing the poll tax and cuts in general, but will not be happy to take responsibility and to be held accountable for the misery caused by the cuts that they inflict on the electorate of for the confusion and administrative difficulty that they cause to authorities.
      Mr. Richard Holt: The hon. Gentleman mentioned manifestos. Which Labour-controlled authority included in its manifesto the figure that it was going to charge in ensuing years, if elected to office, so that community charge payers knew what they were voting for in monetary terms?
      Mr. Blunkett: In London and the metropolitan areas, the poll tax is fixed in February or March. The bills are sent out at the beginning of April, and—unlike central Government—the elected representatives have the temerity to stand for election each year at the beginning of May. There can be no more direct relationship between the bills sent and the judgment of local citizens than that. I am amazed that Conservative Members do not know how the system works—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Lady, who will make an outstanding contribution that will enlighten her fellow Tory Members on how the system works.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman may be right that there is a relationship under some unitary authorities, but he is wrong about authorities such as mine. The county council spends 9p in every 10p, so there is precious little for local district authorities to do once the money has been blued by the county council.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman does not care about that.
      Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman says that I do not care about that; I care greatly about it. We have proposals to improve the operation of local democracy: annual elections in local authorities, the development of unitary government, giving people clear responsibility by removing capping, sensible standard spending assessments and needs systems, reinstating equalisation between different local authorities. All these would introduce direct accountability and would help the hon. Lady's electors to make a direct judgment on what was happening in their area.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I was most interested in the hon. Gentleman's list of proposals for the future of local government. Will he come and discuss them with the Secretary of State and me?
      Mr. Blunkett: I repeat what I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) have often said: we are happy to hold discussions on this issue if the Secretary of State will accept the simple principle that the poll tax should be abolished. I welcome the interventions this afternoon, not least because they reveal the paucity of knowledge among Conservative Members, who appear extremely concerned by the clause, which merely seeks to ensure that information is available to Ministers when they make their decisions and that they are held accountable by local electorates for what they do.
      Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in giving way so often on this point. I am worried by his complete failure to mention any funding commitments by a future Labour Government. Last July the hon. Gentleman condemned the £3 billion increase in external funding as "peanuts". If that was peanuts, by how much would a future Labour Government increase funding? Will he answer that in a straightforward way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will find it somewhat difficult to answer that question within the confines of new clause 1.
      Mr. Blunkett: I would find it as difficult to answer that question as hon. Members would have found it difficult eight days ago to guess how much the Secretary of State was going to get from the Treasury or from cuts in public services to make up the extra £1 billion. I am glad that the Conservatives are pouring money into the system to try to hold down the poll tax—not just because it helps people, but because it will make our lives a great deal easier when we transfer to a modern property tax based on ability to pay. It will certainly make much easier my arguments and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham with the new Chancellor when we take office.
      I return to the Bill. I was simply saying that cuts in services will be initiated by the Government, not only by capping authorities but by using a formula of A minus B minus C over D instead of using the relevant information that is available at the time and taking into account changes that have occurred between the original decision on capping and the order laid for the individual authority's poll tax. Those things are important because, for every £1 that cannot be raised towards the collection fund, £1 of cuts must be made in local authority services or be carried over into the following financial year. This must be picked up by local taxpayers, sometimes entailing the need to borrow; charges are incurred on the borrowing and this pushes up the actual charge necessary to meet what would have been the previous poll tax or local authority tax. The position is made much worse.
      In other words, the Bill is ill-timed, unnecessary and out of date not only because of the Government's change of heart towards the poll tax, but because of last Thursday's statement. Since the conclusion of Standing Committee F, therefore, we have even more reason to reject the Bill and to carry this new clause, which seeks to make some sense of what is before us.
      It is clear that we must ask the Government to justify what they are doing. When we did so in Committee we had some interesting replies. The Under-Secretary of State said:
      "All authorities must make their best estimate of income and expenditure at the beginning of a year and live with the consequences".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 January 1990; c. 108.]
      Who would disagree with that? But, of course, once the authority has been capped, the situation changes. If the authority has taken into account all the circumstances and has made all the necessary adjustments, it will be ruled out of order.
      The Bill deals with the sort of position in which Lambeth found itself when it made a calculation based on its circumstances. Lambeth also made a calculation of what would happen if it was tax-capped. When it went to the High Court, it won. We are debating this Bill on Report and Third Reading and moving the new clause precisely because Lambeth won the case. It was adjudged to have taken due care in its decisions and to have properly weighed the information available to it at the stage to which the Under-Secretary of State referred.
      That made us wonder whether everyone who supported the Bill really understood what it was about and what it was intended to do.
      Mr. Richard Tracey: The hon. Gentleman makes it sound as though Lambeth council is a well-organised London borough. Will he confirm that Lambeth council could not send poll tax bills to people earlier than the day before the local elections in May? Can he say whether many people in Lambeth have received their bills from the council? It is our understanding that most people in Lambeth are still waiting for their bills. Lambeth council is in chaos.
      Mr. Blunkett: Whatever the rights and wrongs of the debate about the effectiveness of services in Lambeth, the council can hardly be blamed for not sending out the bills by 1 April, consequent on the decision of the Government to cap it. If the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) examines the logistics of the position, he will be forced to conclude that the best that Lambeth could do was to announce what figure it intended to levy if it were free to do so. The electors in Lambeth made their decision precisely on those figures, with the debate in the House still to take place and with a court judgment on the validity of the Government's action also pending.
      Everybody knew about Lambeth's bill because the Government made their best efforts to publicise what it would be and what their substitute setting would be. Therefore, a clear judgment could be made about whether to accept the Government's bill or that of Lambeth council. People made that judgment and voted Labour, and no one can cast aside the result of a clear democratic election that was held only a few weeks after the decision to set the poll tax had been publicised.
      In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said:
      "All authorities are in the same boat."
      That is the flagship that is rapidly sinking. He said:
      "Opposition Members are trying to put capped authorities in a boat by themselves".
      It would have been appropriate for the Minister to say "a lifeboat". He continued:
      "But there is no justification for that. There is no reason why a capped authority should have an opportunity that is not available to other authorities to reconsider matters such as its estimate of non-collection when resetting its charges after capping."
      As I said, Lambeth council had an opportunity to weigh up the information available to it before capping and at the point at which it set its poll tax. That was upheld by the court and the Bill deals precisely with that situation by disqualifying the council. Far from us trying to get capped authorities into a lifeboat, which in other circumstances and in another connotation we would seek to do, we are trying to ensure that capped authorities are on all fours about being able to use the information that is available to them.
      Mr. Key: I do not wish to be the tail that wags the hon. Gentleman's dog. I know that he is scrupulously fair: if he reads on in column 109, he will find that I said:
      "Moreover, it is clear that under the present statute a capped authority cannot change its non-collection estimate to allow for the fact that it has been capped. Haringey tried to do that this year when it reset its charge after capping, but that was subsequently quashed by the divisional court."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 January 1991; c. 108–9.]
      Once again the Opposition are confusing the existing statute with the Bill.
      Mr. Blunkett: We are not confused and we have shown that not only by our interventions and contributions but by the words that I read to the House. We understand very
      338
      well what we are trying to do. In this somewhat limited and irrelevant Bill, we are trying to prevent the Government from having the power to set poll tax levels without using the necessary information and without making sensible judgments about the impact on the collection fund and, consequently, on the following year's poll tax or on the cuts that will have to be made. In Committee, we went into detail on matters that would affect those judgments.
      The level of the collection fund will be affected by the precept that is levelled by the precepting authorities and by the national non-domestic rate pool which draws on the collection fund. Of course, it will also be affected by section 95(4) of the 1988 Act, which deals with withdrawal of the local authority's general fund requirements, and by how much is collected. We made a substantial case, and shall make it again, about the importance of bearing in mind when making decisions the consequences of capping itself. Those who cap should be wary of enforcing algebraic formulae on authorities that have to live with the consequences. If collection rates are affected by a delay that inevitably occurs because of capping, it should be taken into account. It is common sense to recognise that collection rates can and will be affected.
      The Government do not have to take our word for it, or even the word of local authorities. We know that the Audit Commission is concerned about the difficulty in some areas of collection, such as the 4 million people who are at the bottom income levels and who are charged the minimum poll tax. There is also the question of those who move house and who local authorities, particularly in inner-city areas, are endeavouring to chase for their poll tax payments. In other words, depending on the area of the country, the 10 to 40 per cent. turnover rate in the locality will have a substantial effect. In my authority, between the date at which the relevant population was asssessed and the beginning of the financial year there has been a 6·3 per cent. population change.
      4.30 pm
      We also pointed out that it was important to understand the difference between the "relevant population" and the "equated population". In a council such as Haringey, it made a difference of £ 1 million in income—a substantial amount for day nurseries, nursery schooling, home helps and meals on wheels. These things matter greatly, especially in an authority which had to make cuts of £28 million to get within the capping criteria in the first place. The amount that would come off poll tax this year in Haringey was affected by about £6; it would have been £70·70 for the relevant population and £64·30 for the equated population, making a difference of £1 million in terms of neglect. The consequences had to be dealt with not by Ministers but by local councillors struggling to make the budget balance.
      That is why we tabled the new clause. We want the maximum information about what is happening to the collection fund and its likely outturn, a matter that we would expect any local authority to take into account. This is called fiduciary duty. Under the 1988 Act, local authorities have something called a whistleblower. We would like a whistleblower on Conservative Members. Time is up for the poll tax and the way in which Conservative Members have colluded with a lie. It is a lie that one can enhance democracy by taking it away; that one can increase accountability by removing it from local

      339
      people and their elected representatives and by taking responsibility but then trying to shift the blame on to the shoulders of local councillors.
      The Government want to have the best of both worlds. They want capping, the poll tax and the gerrymandering of bills as a result of last week's announcement, and they want cuts. They want all this without having to deal directly with the consequences and without having to spell out, as we ask in the new clause, the consequences of the expected cuts. They are oblivious of the long-term increase in the poll tax because of the deficiency on the collection fund. For all those reasons, I ask all hon. Members to vote for the new clause.
      Miss Emma Nicholson: I oppose new clause 1, not on any ideological account and not because I do not take seriously the interesting and demanding questions posed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Indeed, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's great courtesy in giving way so many times. The only reason I did not ask him to give way was that I wanted to make a slightly longer series of points in response to his comments.
      The hon. Member for Brightside referred to the fact that this was a fundamental platform. He pointed out that every £1 capped equalled a cut of £1. That presupposes both perfect efficiency in every local authority and a level of service throughout that is constant. That would then achieve the result suggested by the hon. Gentleman—every £1 capped would equal £1 of cuts.
      Of course, we know that that is not true. That has not happened. In September last year, the National Association of Local Government Officers conducted a survey of the capped authorities, and the union-owned newspaper Public Service reported that Basildon had said that no redundancies were anticipated; Brent had said that no cuts were required as a result of capping; Bristol had said that there would be no redundancies, no cuts in services and no charge increases; Calderdale had said that it was holding growth, increasing some charges and cutting some non-essential services; and Camden had said that no cuts were necessary. The cap was £4·4 million, but Camden council said:
      "Our income is sufficient for us not to need to make cuts."
      Greenwich said that some redundancies were expected, but that there would be no large-scale job cuts, and Lambeth said that it had managed to avoid closure of front-line services and that there would be no redundancies.
      Mr. Illsley: The hon. Lady is reading out an interesting list—
      Miss Nicholson: I have a longer one.
      Mr. Illsley: In that case, perhaps the hon. Lady will tell us what the list says about my authority, Barnsley, and what cuts it had to make.
      Miss Nicholson: I do not intend to list the cuts, results of cuts, or results of capping for every hon. Member's local council. Of course, if I did it would not take too long, as there are so few Opposition Members present for a debate about a matter which they claim causes them great concern.
      I was not at all surprised by that survey. The hon. Member for Brightside should not be surprised either, despite his bland statement that every £1 capped should equal £1 of cuts. The reason why I was not surprised is that
      340
      I have had practical job experience working both inside and alongside local authorities, be they district councils, county councils or that great departed monolith whose death I welcomed and whose funeral pyre I should have liked to light myself, the Greater London council.
      My work with local authorities was during my pre-parliamentary years, when I worked in industry, in business and in the voluntary sector. I well recall the appalling shock that I received, as someone who believed in the high level of services that local authorities were supposed to provide—I knew less then and I was more naive about the massive incompetence in some of the geographical areas—when I went to the GLC to do a job for the computer industry. You are highly computer-literate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so you will know that it is crucial that different forms of machinery and different forms of software interlock—[Interruption.] Of course Mr. Deputy Speaker is computer literate; everybody with a farming constituency is computer literate these days.
      I was genuinely shocked, in a real professional sense, when I discovered that the GLC had made massive incompetent investment in four different mainframe manufacturers, none of whose equipment or software was compatible at that time. The GLC had four huge teams of staff, each pursuing different sorts of machinery and software and trying to carry out different sorts of task. I found that a professional abomination and I was deeply shocked. It was because of the GLC's incompetence that the company for which I was working as a general consultant was called in to do one of the simplest jobs of all—to create a computerised payroll for part of the GLC organisation. Although it appears funny retrospectively, I did not find it amusing at the time when I asked for some software manuals for a particular part of the job and the staff were absolutely astounded. They opened a cupboard, and out fell a load of empty whisky bottles. Such was the enormous competence of the GLC.
      Subsequently, when I was in the voluntary agency field, I worked alongside social services department people and I recognised with great sadness the enormous disparity in the level of services that they were able to supply—not, I hasten to add, because of their desire to provide less than efficient services, but because of their incompetence in some areas and in certain parts of the country. There is great disparity in levels of competence. That is where new clause 1 comes in.
      In the course of his speech, the hon. Member for Brightside made the discredited comment that every £1 capped equalled £1 of cuts. This has clearly not happened in the past 12 months and never will, given these disparities of service. It presupposes perfect efficiency in every local authority.
      Subsection (4)(a) of the new clause demands that the Secretary of State shall specify
      "an estimate of the additional community charge in the following financial year likely to result from the losses estimated under section (1) above."
      In the cases of the seven district councils that I have listed which had charge capping last year and where no cuts resulted, I suggest that the Secretary of State would be offering a nil forecast. He would be offering a nil forecast because capping has meant that councils have been forced to look again at their incompetence and inefficiency and have been forced to tighten their belts.
      Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend like to speculate what the Labour-controlled authorities would be doing with all

      341
      that money that they would have had without charge capping? They have not had to cut any services, so what would they have done if they had managed to get their grubby hands on all that money?
      Miss Nicholson: I am very sorry to say that we would have had even higher staff levels in those local authorities and even slower provision of services to the electorate outside. As we all know, when one builds up a so-called core of administration, even with the best well-meaning people, the line between the centre and the elected gets slower and slower in achievement.
      I hope that the Minister will consider this seriously. I believe that we should go further than just putting in agency provisions for the delivery of Government services; we should go out to private companies, put them under stringent rules and allow them to provide the services, which they will do at perhaps half the cost incurred by so many of our local authorities at present.
      The hon. Member for Brightside suggested—and I wholly support him—that those who take the decisions should be accountable. Those were his very words, but he related those words to the Government. He suggested that those who take the decision to charge-cap should be accountable to the electorate. I suggest that the Conservative philosophy reflects those words in local authority action. The local authority should be accountable. From the Conservative perspective, these caps are only a method of creating local accountability. Indeed, as we have seen from the figures I have read out, this has in some measure already occurred.
      The hon. Member cannot say that we tell a lie—that is a word I would not normally use in this place—about enhancing democracy by taking it away. We have, in fact, enhanced democracy. Yes, we have done so with some difficulty; yes, with some elements that I cannot support; and yes, with some points that I know we are already clearing up and others that need further clearing up. Nevertheless, we have increased democracy and we have brought closer to the people of the United Kingdom the decision making which should be theirs alone—the decision making undertaken on their behalf by local authorities. We have given them the ability to call the tune. There has been no gerrymandering of bills and there may have been a misunderstanding of that word.
      Finally, I question the still confused thinking that has been displayed by Opposition Members about the operations of local democracy. I was fascinated to see the utter dichotomy, the contradiction in terms, offered by the hon. Member for Brightside when he called both for the removal of SSAs and for the equalisation of local authorities. He is speaking against himself, because the point of SSAs is to equalise the services offered throughout the United Kingdom. One cannot have equalisation of local authorities without some form of redistribution of income, and SSAs offer a moderately simple way of doing that.
      Incidentally, I do not necessarily pay tribute to the eternal values of equalisation of services throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that we may have gone too far on that one. Nevertheless, I call into question the hon. Member's illogicality, which I am sure he does not intend, when he offers two opposing aspects and suggests that they reach one solution.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Illsley: The hon. Lady said that charge capping enhanced democracy and increased accountability. Surely charge capping has done just the opposite. If the Conservative Government had wanted to increase accountability, they would have allowed the electorate to decide on the poll tax bills of the charge-capped authorities. That is the idea of accountability; it is not just a matter of the Government imposing on these local authorities a poll tax which they then have to sell. The hon. Lady also said that SSAs equalise resources. If that is so, why does Manchester get more money to pay for its standard level of services than many other metropolitan districts such as Westminster?
      Miss Nicholson: I agree that in a perfect world we could give complete freedom to local authorities to set their own bills and allow complete freedom to the electorate to turn out those local authorities which failed to deliver the services at the sorts of costs people require. However, as the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman himself said recently, if a Labour Government were in power they would consider keeping some sort of power in reserve for something like a charge-capping exercise.
      Mr. Blunkett rose—
      Miss Nicholson: I will give way to the hon. Member when I have finished making this point. The shadow Environment Secretary who was the predecessor to the hon. Member for Brightside said that, in extremis, there must always be that reserve power. He made that statement on Radio 4 on 27 March 1990. The shadow Environment Secretary before him stated in Hansard:
      "the Labour party's policy makes it clear that what the Government provide to local authorities would, of necessity, be controlled and limited"—[Official Report, 18 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 1218]
      I agree that in a perfect world there would not need to be these controls and limits. I suggest that it is a mere short-term view, simply because of the profligacy of some of the Labour councils which has been so appalling that one shudders to think what the poorer members of society would suffer if these councils were allowed to go full tilt down the road of massive expenditure.
      Mr. Blunkett: I simply want to put the record straight, and there is no point in not doing it now. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) made it clear that his remarks which the hon. Lady has mentioned, on Radio 4's "Today" programme, referred to propriety and financial probity. The Labour party's position is unequivocal. We will not introduce capping for local revenue raised and spent by a local authority, as distinct from Government grant which in all circumstances has, by its very nature, to be determined by the Government.
      Miss Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go a little further down the path, although I had in fact finished. The former shadow Environment Secretary went on to say:
      "It is really just a hypothetical question to ask us to define what would be extreme circumstances. What I am saying to you—I am not ducking your question in any sense—I am saying in extremis the reserve power would have to be reserved but that it is impossible to say in advance what those circumstances would be".
      In other words, the Labour party has no policy. It has failed to recognise honourably and honestly that it is

      343
      Labour councils which overspend in a way that is unacceptable to the electorate. Labour councils spend on themselves in terms of their central staffing, central comforts and they do not give to the electorate those things that the electorate deserves.
      I cannot support new clause 1 or the Labour party's policy on the community charge. I look to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to his most able Ministers to deliver the right and proper answers within the Conservative philosophy.
      Mr. Illsley: I support new clause 1 and, in view of what I said in Committee, I hope to keep my remarks brief.
      It is not that some authorities are profligate and overspend; it is simply that the Government have imposed on them standard spending assessments which are deliberately low to force them into a situation where they can easily be charge-capped under the Government's current criteria. In Committee, the Opposition showed clearly that the SSAs bore no relation to the needs of any particular authority.
      I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) about a newspaper published by the National and Local Government Officers Association which I think she said was produced last September. Barnsley is still making cuts as a result of last year's charge capping of which the newspaper probably would not be aware.
      New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to estimate losses that are likely to be carried forward for the forthcoming year. The formula as it stands in the Bill simply passes the result of any charge capping on to the poll tax payer in the following financial year, and no account is taken of the shortfall despite the fact that that information is available at the time of the charge capping. It is nonsense that the Government should force authorities to issue bills which the Government and the local authorities know are ridiculous because they do not take account of the information that is available to the authority at the time. The public do not want that shortfall being stored up for the following year.
      For example, in 1990–91 Barnsley allocated 6 per cent. of its poll tax bill to cover any shortfall in the collection of the tax, and that was detailed on the bill. There is considerable resentment among charge payers in my authority because they are expected to pay £16·97 to cover what they look upon as defaulters. Complaints to me and in the local press are now building up from people who refuse to pay that sum. They will pay the rest of the poll tax bill, but they are not prepared to pay for someone who defaults. They do not realise that similar problems existed under the rating system. That is causing problems for the local authority.
      It is not just ordinary working people who object, but the business community as well—perhaps more so. They tend to look on people who are unable to pay as shirkers, just as Conservative Members do, although that is not necessarily the case. One can imagine the disgust of charge payers in my local authority if they had to make up a shortfall of more than 6 per cent. That is simply increasing the number of refusals to pay the poll tax and placing an extra burden on the local authority. People are deciding to pay simply a proportion of the poll tax and to withhold the £16·97. Therefore, my local authority is having to send out extra bills, obtain court orders and all the rest simply because people are refusing to pay that 6 per cent. It shows
      344
      that people do not want such sums stored up for the forthcoming year but would far rather have their bills sorted out logically in the current year when the capping is implemented.
      If the Secretary of State is required to lay such an estimate of losses, the local authority can identify what it will be required to make up in the following year. It is obviously sensible for a local authority which knows that it will be short on its collection funds to take that into account at the time of capping. It is crazy simply to tell local authorities that, although it is known that they have a 10 per cent. shortfall in their collection funds, nothing can be done about it in June, July, August or September, and it must wait till the following year.
      Again, that reflects on the SSAs, which appear not to have been altered to any great extent this year compared with last year. My authority still has the same problems and we shall have similar problems with capping. All we are doing is building up problems for the future. We are simply creating a situation in which authorities that were capped originally will be capped in the future.
      New clause I requires the Secretary of State to specify the proposed increase in the charge. I have some sympathy with that because charge payers coming to my surgeries do not want to hear about aggregate external finance or increases in revenue support grant which, incidentally, are about 1·9 per cent. Most of the £3 billion spoken about this year is coming through non-domestic rating, not through increases in Government grant. What they want to know is what the increase will be in pounds, not in percentages here, there and everywhere.
      New clause 1 also requires a schedule of reductions in services. Again, I have considerable sympathy with that. I have to laugh when I hear stories about whisky bottles in cupboards and all the rest. It is obvious that some Conservative Members are living in a dream world. My authority comes under the Audit Commission and is regulated by the same legislation as are all other authorities. My authority is a diligent one, which abides by the rules and regulations laid down. Authorities referred to by Conservative Members do not seem to come under the same legislation. Why are not complaints made about those profligate authorities? Some of the stories related by Conservative Members are incredible.
      When an authority sets a sensible budget and when treasurers, heads of department and all the rest have spent considerable time determining their budget for the coming year, agonising over it for two or three months, how can they simply cut £10 million off it, as Barnsley was required to do? Which services should be cut? My area was not guilty of high spending and there was no waste, yet cuts had to be made in every department—small cuts here, there and everywhere, except in education, where the cuts were massive. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West, who is no longer in her place, referred to authorities that had not had to make employees redundant as a result of charge capping. I assure her that some education centres in Barnsley were closed as a direct result of charge capping.
      It is not good enough for the Government simply to tell a local authority that it is being capped and that, say, £10 million must be taken out of its budget. The Government should be obliged to indicate to the authority how the £10 million might be saved. But they do not do that. They know that some local authorities, such as the

      345
      one in my area, simply cannot cut spending without reducing services. They know that authorities, in setting their budgets, have acted responsibly.
      It should be remembered that the Manchesters, the Bradfords, the Wandsworths and the Westminsters get double the amount of money that Barnsley gets to provide services at the same level. Why does Manchester get twice as much as the local authority in my area to provide the same services? It is absolutely ridiculous.
      The Government are abdicating their responsibility. They do not know where the cuts could be made. They themselves could not do the job. The whole idea of charge capping is a sham, because it is based on the sham standard spending assessment.
      5 pm
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I shall try to make my comments brief, as other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I shall confine myself to the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said that those who take decisions should be made accountable. That is exactly what new clause 1 seeks to do. It seeks to make the Government accountable for what they are forcing upon local authorities. If the hon. Lady and her colleagues are so keen on this mechanism, it is odd that they are resisting this new clause, which specifically addresses the fact that the Bill provides the Secretary of State with strengthened powers by giving him the right, in effect, to decide a local authority's poll tax as well as its budget. That is true of all local authorities that the Secretary of State chooses to charge-cap.
      This is an ironic twist, bearing in mind what the present Secretary of State for the Environment wrote to The Times in May 1990:
      "Local authorities should be free to set and account for their own budgets."
      But the Government are seeking to take that right away from the local authorities. They know that the task that has been set is impossible, and they do not wish themselves, as the Government, to be held accountable for extremely difficult decisions.
      New clause 1 refers specifically to difficulties in respect of the collection fund. It would oblige the Secretary of State to specify the services that a local authority area was likely to lose. If he was unable or was not prepared to identify the cuts, he would be required to specify the deficit that would have to be carried forward and would result in an increase in poll tax in the following financial year. The Government are not prepared to give an estimate or to take into consideration the difficulties that local authorities have to face.
      In Bristol, whose council is one of the authorities that the hon. Lady quoted, the Government are requiring a cut of £21 million in the expenditure for next year. Bearing in mind the fact that the total expenditure figure is £62 million, anybody who believes that a reduction of £21 million will be achieved without loss of services and loss of jobs is clearly living in cloud cuckoo land. Let us look at the experience in Bristol this year. Let us consider the information that we should wish the Secretary of State to take into account when identifying cuts. The poll tax is proving to be almost impossible to collect. The Audit Commission, when studying collection and looking at the
      346
      collection fund, investigated a number of authorities, of which Bristol city council was one. Thus we have up-to-date information on the problems of that local authority.
      In Bristol, administration of the poll tax costs £18·22 per head of the adult population. The Audit Commission estimated that the figure should be £14. The difference is accounted for by the fact that the council had to find new offices for the increased number of staff needed to deal with the poll tax. That has been carried forward. In addition, the authority has to pay the collection charge and giro costs. The administration charge for the rates was £7·35 per head. In addition, as a result of charge capping, court appeals and the endless rebilling that has been necessary—
      Mr. Holt: Would the hon. Lady care to say whether she has paid her own charge this year? If not, by how much does she estimate she has burdened other people as a result of failure to conform with the law?
      Ms. Primarolo: I intend to apply to myself the discipline of sticking to the new clause, even if other hon. Members cannot do so. I should be happy, at another time and in a relevant debate, to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the invidious effects of the poll tax on my constituents and on many others who are unable to pay. Pensioners, despite an increase in their pensions, are worse off because they have lost even the small amount of relief that was available.
      Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Primarolo: No. It is well known in this House that I am not frightened by the bullying of hon. Members on the Government Benches. I intend to persist with the speech on new clause 1 that I rose to make. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a discussion outside the Chamber, I shall be delighted.
      In Bristol, 100,000 people have not paid their poll tax, and in that figure I include those who are in arrears. The local authority is pursuing them in the magistrates court at the rate of 3,000 summonses twice a week for liability orders. That clearly shows that many people find the tax unpayable and that others refuse to pay it. That makes the poll tax uncollectable. Local authorities cannot provide the Government with the information to show how they can comply with the Government's spending directives to balance their books.
      There are particular problems in university cities such as Bristol. In such areas problems arise in calculating bills. Even when students pay only 20 per cent. of their bills, the calculation for students in the formula creates problems. Amended bills for students were issued after court action and appeals and they arrived after the academic year had finished. Many people had delayed paying their bills because they were waiting for the outcome of the action and they left the area after the academic year ended. Local authorities cannot trace those people, because that would pose enormous administrative problems and involve great expense.
      New clause 1 is straightforward. The Opposition's view of the poll tax is well known. We believe that it is an undemocratic and vile tax and that people's taxes should be based on their ability to pay. The local authority in Bristol will have to take hard decisions to find the £21 million-worth of cuts in services that the Government have directed the authority to make.

      347
      If the new clause is accepted, the idea that those who take the decisions should be accountable for them will not be the hollow rhetoric that is normally uttered by the Government. The new clause will make the concept real because the Secretary of State will have to take responsibility for his directives. He will have to specify, when making the orders, how the cuts can be achieved and what services will be lost. Therefore, my constituents will know who is accountable for the cuts in services—the Government.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I will vote in favour of the new clause if it is forced to a vote. We oppose the Bill because we oppose the poll tax. The poll tax is a predictable nonsense. It fails to do the one thing that the Government most wanted it to do because it has not increased accountability, particularly as capping has been introduced. Accountability and capping are contradictory concepts.
      No amendment to the poll tax system will lead to accountability. There will be no accountable system until local government is reformed properly. This is not the right occasion to expand in detail on what would make the system accountable. Suffice it to say that we should have a system under which the people who are elected to local government reflect the views of the electorate. In 1982, Islington borough council had 51 Labour members and one non-Labour member when Labour received only 50 per cent. of the vote. That is the greatest distortion of the local government system that I can recall in recent times.
      We should have a system of local government that accurately reflects what people want in respect of the political colour of their local authority, and people should pay a reasonable amount according to their ability to pay. I support that concept, and my colleagues and I have taken up the Secretary of State's invitation and we have argued for and answered questions on the concept of local income tax as an alternative to the poll tax. When the whole saga of the poll tax ends, I believe that we will have a local income tax system. That was the proposal put forward by Layfield many years ago; it is the idea that my colleagues and I have supported for a decade or more and it is the proposal put forward by many people who have no political affiliations.
      5.15 pm
      The aim of the Bill is to plug the Lambeth loophole. If we are to have this system for another year, it is appropriate that we should know the implications of capping in terms of an authority's loss of finance. The amount that a local authority receives and the amount that it loses as a result of poll tax capping is worse under the present system than it was under the rate capping system. Under rate capping, the cap was imposed before the beginning of the financial year, and at least a local authority began in April knowing what its budget was. The present system is nonsense: a local authority sets its budget, begins the financial year and, sometimes months later, through no fault of its own, it is told what it can spend.
      In those circumstances, capped authorites such as Southwark have to examine their budgets and cut services. That is nonsense, and it is unjustifiable if we believe that there should be a logical system of financial planning for local authority members or their officers.
      Mr. Robin Squire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in contrast to what he has just said, the Government have made it clear in advance what local authorities would need to do in the forthcoming year if they were to be capped? To that extent, much of the uncertainty no longer exists.
      Mr. Hughes: I accept that the conditions have been improved. However, the law still permits that a charge cap can, and will, be imposed after April and that might not be exactly on all fours with the predictions and assumptions. However, I accept that the Government have tried to mitigate the effect of an authority being in the dark at the end of March and setting a budget with only a vague idea from on high of what might happen. At least that will be better.
      The number of people who do not pay the poll tax is relevant. I understand that the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) has not paid her poll tax. No doubt she will correct me if I am wrong. She avoided answering the intervention of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). However much we may dislike the poll tax, it is unjustifiable for people on a parliamentary salary not to pay the poll tax. Local authorities will spent a lot of money chasing after the poll tax and public money is thereby wasted. By any definition, hon. Members can afford to pay the poll tax, because we are among the best paid in the land. Although we may not like the system, we have not brought the system down by not paying the poll tax. Not paying has simply added to the reduction in services for people who are considerably worse off than anyone in this House.
      The Audit Commission stated that in general there are two classes of local authority. In one class there a re authorities with relatively static populations in which collection rates are high. In the other class of authorities, of which Southwark is one, population turnover is high. In Southwark, the population turnover rate is about 25 per cent. a year. Obviously the whole population does not turn round in four years, but about 25 per cent. of the population enter and leave the area every year. In those circumstances, collection of the poll tax is almost impossible. It is impossible to collect the tax in an urban area where there are students, holidaymakers, temporary workers and people who move into temporary housing having been homeless and then going on to more secure accommodation, or who move into private residential accommodation but cannot pay the tax.
      Only a couple of people have written to me saying that, despite trying to do so, they cannot pay their poll tax. However, an enormous number of people consider that the first thing they should do when they move house is to let the local authority know their address so that they can get a bill. That is not something that people are instinctively most happy to do. It is unfair to treat local authorities in the same way, no matter what their circumstances are, and to assume that, whatever the local authority, a collection rate of 90 or 95 per cent. will be achieved. The problem is increased if there are linguistic problems such as those in my area where there are many first languages.
      People should be in no doubt that the system, and certainly the charge capping system, is the fault of the Government. However—I say this without reservation—matters are often made worse by incompetence in the budgetary planning of local authorities. I shall do what I might be predicted to do, and that is to point out that, in

      349
      Southwark, despite my great sympathy for the services that many good officers are trying to deliver, we have had a series of bungles. I shall refer to an example that all hon. Members would be troubled by, and show how money is still appallingly wasted even though we are in incredibly reduced circumstances.
      According to Southwark council's finance department, we have an income of about £85 million from rents, and we have rent arrears of about £40 million. Nearly half of this year's rent income is the amount of arrears accumulated from this year and past years. No council can justify a system that does not collect the equivalent of nearly half its annual rent income by way of rents. We have a huge housing stock—the largest in London—but that does not excuse us not getting in the money. There are people in the poverty trap, but quite a lot of that money is either not chased through the housing benefit system or is not chased when people are able to pay.
      Half of this week's Southwark Sparrow, a newspaper which is produced every week, contains advertisements for jobs in Southwark council. I make a protest under the local government legislation. The Committee, of which I was a member, suggested that advertisements should be non-political. That suggestion does not appear to be well followed, because I noticed a procession of Labour members—it is a Labour-controlled council—appearing in photographic form. Opposition members appear either not often or not at all.
      Miss Joan Lestor: They are not as photogenic as Labour Members.
      Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Lady thought that photogenic Labour colleagues would be shown, she would be disappointed. It is not just the quality of the subject matter; it has something to do with the editorial balance of the paper.
      In the latest edition of Southwark Sparrow we are told by the chairman of Southwark housing that there are likely to be council rent rises of about £4 in the coming year because of "special repairs". Those repairs are meant to be done under the tenancy agreement. In future, if tenancy agreements are changed, such repairs will not be done, even though tenants are entitled to them under the housing law. They will have to pay £4 extra to get into the position that they should have been in had the job been done in the first place.
      I am going to a meeting tonight—I guess that hundreds of people will be there—[Interruption.] I shall not be late. It is not until 8 pm. At that meeting I shall explain why the central heating and hot water systems on the Heygate estate are not working. One answer may be that they have never been maintained properly.
      I have never agreed with the abolition of ILEA, and I was sympathetic with Southwark when it took over education. Continuing to pay about £100,000 to teachers who did not exist was a bit of an extravagance. With the best will in the world, the payroll department has been failing to pay some teachers, paying some teachers too much, and paying some teachers their salary but without their London weighting. It hardly leads to a contented work force if the function of the department in terms of delivering a service and paying staff is not working properly.
      350
      The bad example is in social services. We have a crisis in Southwark. I do not attribute the inherent crisis to the Labour party. Today we have 100 unallocated child risk registered children without social workers. One thousand people had their home helps taken away as a result of cuts imposed by capping only a few weeks ago. Six day centres will close, not to mention others that already have closed. All those matters are the direct result of impositions on this year's budget, caused by the Government capping Southwark, and they are objectionable for that reason.
      That does not excuse, for example, deciding that the only way of dealing with the Oakhaven holiday home for the elderly and disabled in Bexhill was to close and sell it rather than using some imaginative partnership scheme with private money to keep it going. That does not excuse closing the sheltered workshop in Tooley street, rather than looking for a way of developing the site to keep it going. The hon. Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) joined me in an all-party alliance to make our point to the council only this week.
      It also does not excuse suddenly, without any consultation with the users or their families let alone with the staff, announcing that all the 27 sheltered housing units will have no resident wardens as from next month. Therefore, vulnerable people will be able only to ring a bell at the weekend or at night. Some of them are in their 80s and 90s, some of them are in wheelchairs, and some of them have walking frames. Some of them are terrified and have written letters threatening suicide.
      Such financial management, even under pressure, is inexcusable. I understand, therefore, why a Government should say, "Put your house in order; only then will we help you."
      The worst example is that Southwark, a charge-capped Labour borough, which is desperately short of money and which cut 1,000 people's home helps, announced that the deputy chief executive's salary would go up to £70,000, which is more than the Prime Minister's salary. However good the deputy chief executive might be at his job, I do not think that suddenly increasing his salary by between £25,000 and £30,000 is acceptable. I certainly do not think that it is acceptable when it appeared to be the decision of what is called the urgency sub-committee, which is two people meeting in a hole in the corner. To be fair, even the Labour group was somewhat unhappy at being told that the deputy chief executive had had a salary increase that was approved by the leader of the council and one of her colleagues.
      If we are serious about pleading for the needs of an inner-city authority, as we should be, we must be serious about making sure that we do not make stupid decisions. Credible local government meeting the desperate needs of inner-city people—we need millions of pounds for housing, social services and all other local government services, and we need all the money that we are meant to have—is not enhanced or helped by the local authority regularly scoring own goals and wasting millions of pounds that are not its to waste.
      I shall vote for the new clause. When the Government impose charge caps, we should know what the direct implication is. I sincerely hope that the Government realise that this exercise, which was meant to bring about accountability, has not done so because it was fundamentally never likely to do it. It was meant to bring

      351
      about efficiency, but it has not done that either. It has brought hardship but not efficiency. Until we have a new system, we will not get either right.
      Mr. Holt: Middlesbrough borough council is well known for its Labour bosses, who never have an original idea among them. They look slavishly around to see what is happening elsewhere and try to follow suit whenever possible. They hit on the Lambeth position. When they were examining their budgets, ostensibly to achieve the figures laid down by the Government, they cynically and deliberately failed to balance them so that they could make a special, Lambeth-type plea. The Bill is intended to stop that, and that is why I support it.
      We shall tell local authorities such as Middlesbrough not to flout the law of the land but to make the necessary cuts. The cuts can easily be made. If the Labour party finds it difficult, it can hand over control to the Conservatives and we shall show them how to do it without any reduction in services. We shall give the people of Middlesbrough value for money.
      As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, the inefficiency of Middlesbrough borough council was well highlighted by its failure to apply in time and correctly for concessionary television licences for elderly residents in my constituency. As a consequence, those elderly residents have lost their concessionary television licence for ever because there was a vesting date by which the applications had to he put in correctly. The clerical staff and the managers who were supposed to supervise them simply failed to apply in time.
      If my hon. Friend the Minister is approached by Middlesbrough borough council asking him to waive the capping rules he should not do so, because the authority wastes money as if there were no tomorrow.
      5.30 pm
      Miss Lestor: My constituency of Eccles is in the city of Salford, a predominantly Labour council for many years, operating in an atmosphere of long-term unemployment and a great deal of social deprivation. No Secretary of State has yet called us inefficient or accused us of overspending. Yet in that atmosphere in my local authority, two or three matters must be brought home to the Secretary of State and those who oppose the new clause.
      The cost of collecting and administering the poll tax and the non-domestic rate in Salford is £3·5 million, compared with £1·5 million in 1988–89 for the collection of the general rate. That represents £12 on every poll tax bill, assuming that everyone in the area is paying the full poll tax. Although our record of collection is good in Salford, many people are not paying the full poll tax for a variety of reasons.
      Of that £3·5 million, £3 million is for collection. The treasury department has taken on an extra 75 people to administer the collection of the poll tax. The number of staff has increased from 52 to 127. The housing benefit department has taken on another 33 people to administer housing benefit properly. Of course, all those people have to be paid. That is all part of the cost of administering the poll tax.
      When the Government talk about extending democracy to local government it would make me laugh if it were not so tragic. In Salford, as in many other areas, we must avoid being capped because that would be disastrous. We must
      352
      increase the poll tax, not to keep or provide extra services but to pay for the administration of the poll tax. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) does not know what she is talking about when she speaks about services. She ran away almost as soon as she had finished speaking. We have had to employ extra people to administer the poll tax and also pay for computers and other equipment that we would not have needed otherwise.
      In other words, to avoid being poll tax capped and to pay the extra costs of administration we have to increase the poll tax but cut services. If we increased the poll tax and increased services, we would be in danger of being capped. That is a monstrous position for any local authority, yet that is precisely our position and that of many local authorities throughout Britain.
      The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West asked what local authorities would have done with the extra revenue if they had not been poll tax-capped. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned some omissions in local authority services in his constituency. Councils cannot provide certain services.
      The Government entirely ignore the social consequences of the poll tax. Many people in my constituency have to make a choice between buying their children shoes or paying their poll tax. Hundreds of people's poll tax bills are much bigger than their bill for the general rates. No one has ever taken into account how such people are supposed to balance their budgets.
      The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West and others often talk about cuts and wasteful authorities. The House constantly, in many instances rightly, passes legislation that imposes a charge on local authorities. Last year, I sat on the Standing Committee that considered the Children Bill. The Children Act 1990 is going out to local authorities with certain guidelines. It is estimated that administering that Act alone, which is intended to protect our children, will cost local authorities on average about £500,000 a year. How are local authorities to do it? How are they to employ the extra staff needed if they are in danger of being poll tax capped?
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey gave other examples. It is not only in London or Southwark that hundreds of children on the at-risk register have no social worker attached to them. That happens throughout the country. Inner-city social services are bursting at the seams because they have improved their techniques for identifying children at risk and detecting child abuse but cannot allocate people to protect such children.
      We pass legislation and say to local authorities, "Here you are. Get on with it." We all support legislation such as the Children Act 1990, but there is no money to implement it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady and I agree that one thing that we should do is state at the beginning of every Bill that comes to the House the cost and manpower implications not to only the national Treasury but to local authorities to implement what we instruct them to do. If we did that and guaranteed funding for local authorities every time we gave them a new job, we should have a fairer and more just system.
      Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that I intended to make and I shall conclude on that note. Conservative Members do not calculate and take no

      353
      interest in the cost implications for local authorities of the legislation that they pass. The Children Act 1990 cannot be properly implemented unless capping of local authorities is stopped and more resources are made available.
      In my area and throughout the country services will be cut, poll tax bills will increase and there will be no improvement in services to local people who will pay higher bills to meet the administrative costs. That is what is wrong with the poll tax and with the argument that it increases democracy. From the start, poll tax bills and their consequences have been controlled by central Government, who seek to make local authorities pay the price in terms of electoral representation.
      Mr. William O'Brien: I shall not detain the House too long, but we should put the record straight. The debate has shown that Conservative Members oppose local government, whereas the Opposition have confidence in local government and want to see it provide the services that people demand and expect. New clause 1 asks that the Secretary of State
      "lay before Parliament an estimate of the losses likely to be incurred to the collection fund of any authority referred to in such an order"
      where poll tax capping would take place.
      The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) criticised local government extensively. She was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill in detail, yet she did not speak one word during its proceedings. She had many opportunities to make her comments in Committee because we had a similar debate to this one. It is a pity that she did not, because that would have allowed us to debate the issue. However, she declined to take that opportunity. Even tonight, she left the Chamber to prevent us from putting the matter straight. She did not address some of the problems that face local government.
      The hon. Lady did not mention the reductions in the rate support grant that have been imposed in the 11 years of this Government and which have severely restricted the ability of local authorities to provide services. She read from a publication that said that there would be no cuts in services, but she did not address that report to rate-capped authorities. She did not mention that some local authorities are likely to be in deficit at the end of this year because some of the changes that have been made were implemented halfway through the local authority financial year.
      The hon. Lady acted unfairly by leaving the Chamber, as that did not allow us to explain some of the problems faced by local authorities. The hon. Lady said that the purpose of the poll tax was to equalise services throughout local authorities. She omitted to say, however, that the formula used by the Government and the Secretary of State to decide that level of services is more than 10 years old. In that time, tremendous changes have affected local government and its services. The present system allows the Secretary of State to attempt to equalise services on the basis of a 10-year-old formula. That is what is wrong with local government. It is being judged on an outdated formula. It is time that the Government updated it to achieve fairness and justice for local government.
      The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) criticised Middlesbrough authority. It is fair to point out, however,
      354
      that it is the electorate of that area who vote for the constitution of that authority. Under our democratic system, such votes demonstrate that the people are satisfied with their representatives and the decisions they have reached. That is the democratic system for which we fight and in which we believe. Therefore, we should take note of the decisions of the local electorate.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the system by which we elect an authority is democratic is not right. There is some dispute about that, and many people—including many in his party—believe that, because of the nature of the electoral system, people end up with an unrepresentative group.
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall not go down that avenue, although I could take the hon. Gentleman to task over some of the principles of the voting procedure in which the Liberal Democrats profess to believe.
      I want to explain the aims of the new clause. It requires the Secretary of State to inform local authorities about the effects of setting the substitute poll tax using the formula in the Bill. He should explain that that substitute will affect the following year's poll tax. I hope that hon. Members take note of the purpose of the amendment.
      Mr. Holt: In the past 10 years, the population of Middlesbrough has fallen dramatically, but the formula has remained unchanged. I believe that that is right, because if the payments were not based on the old formula, Middlesbrough authority would not receive as much money as it does and the need to cap it would be even greater.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the misleading view of the formula held by Conservative Members. Even if there was a reduction in population, highways would need to be maintained and services provided. The equalisation of services should be provided for in the formula. The Tories have got it all wrong regarding the formula needed for local government to work efficiently. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that the Labour party would not introduce capping, but would have a fairer system of assessing the need for the equalisation of services throughout the country. That is Labour party policy on local government.
      If Conservative Members consider the principles behind the new clause and if they have any thought for local government and the services they provide, they must give it their blessing. We shall divide the House on the new clause, and I appeal to Conservative Members in particular to support it.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Key: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities apologises to the House for his absence, but he has been called away to an important meeting. However, he will be back in time for Third Reading.
      By tabling the new clause, the Opposition, once again, set out to perpetuate the myth that the Bill will in some way cause authorities to incur a deficit on the collection fund. The Opposition repeat that assertion now, despite our lengthy discussions in Committee about it. They believe that the formula in the Bill radically changes the position of the charging authorities concerned by

      355
      preventing them from increasing the allowance they made for non-collection when they first set their charges for the year. That is simply not the case. It is also not true that the Bill would require capped authorities to make further budget cuts to allow for non-collection in addition to those required by capping.
      As I made clear in Committee, the Opposition's arguments are based on a false premise. There is a statutory requirement for an authority to balance its books when setting the charges at the start of the year. The Bill does not change that. All authorities must make their best estimate of income and expenditure at the beginning of the year and live with the consequences. An authority's actual income and expenditure are bound to differ somewhat from its estimate, so, at the end of the year, its collection fund will be in surplus or deficit. If the actual number of charge payers is lower than the authority estimated when setting its charge, the actual income will be less than estimated and a deficit will ensue.
      No authority can increase its charges part way through the year just because it realises that it got its estimates wrong. The statutory arrangements are such that any deficit must be allowed for when setting next year's charges. All authorities are in the same boat. The Bill simply guarantees that capped authorities are firmly kept in that boat.
      Mr. Illsley rose—
      Mr. Key: I would rather make progress than give way; that will enable me to answer the points made by the hon. Gentleman and others.
      The Opposition persist in believing that a capped authority is, in some way, disadvantaged by the fact that the formula deliberately prevents it from changing its non-collection allowance. I firmly reject that. The whole point behind the formula is to ensure that charge payers in such authorities are not disadvantaged by a repetition of the antics in which Lambeth indulged this year.
      It is a pleasure to be back with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He referred to his long-suffering friend, Offa. I, too, have a long-suffering friend called Tigger. I suggest that Offa should come to dinner with Tigger. While they are eating, we could discuss, without any preconditions, the possible reforms that the hon. Gentleman might like to make to the community charge.
      The hon. Gentleman said that Lambeth would not send out its bill by 1 April because of the Secretary of State's decision to cap the authority. However, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the capping process. The statutory position is clear—each charging authority must set its charge by 1 April and send out bills as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter. That process should continue irrespective of capping. Charge payers must pay the charge as originally set until, if there is capping, the revised substitute charge has been set.
      As I said in Committee, when Lambeth people went to the polls in May, they knew that the council had been designated for capping because, in the Secretary of State's opinion, its budget was excessive. Lambeth knew that the Secretary of State had proposed to cut £8·8 million, or £51 per adult. Those people trooped off and voted because they believed what the Labour party said. They expected their charges to be below £500, but we all know that, in the event, that did not happen. What did it do after cutting its
      356
      budget? It reduced the charge to £52l·63. The Labour party cheated its electorate. That was the problem with Lambeth.
      In March, when Lambeth set its original charge for the year, it used an estimate of non-collection—the number of people liable to pay who do not do so—of 10 per cent. In August, when the council reset its charge following capping, it increased its estimate to 15 per cent. The effect of the change was to deny the Lambeth charge payer about £29 of the reduction implied by the cuts in its budget.
      Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend probably knows this from his records. I have some Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy figures showing that, in the last recorded year of rate collection, Lambeth council had £33 million of rate arrears. That amounted to almost 20 per cent. That shows how Lambeth has effectively been trying to cook its books in front of its electors.
      Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. The Audit Commission had a great deal to say about Lambeth and about the fact that the council was sending bills to addresses outside the borough, to people who did not exist and, in some cases, to the same people four times over. I know that Opposition Members find it embarrassing to have to defend Lambeth, so I shall move on to the contributions made by other hon. Members.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) made a forceful speech, in which she made it clear that capping does not necessarily lead to job cuts. She is absolutely right. She referred in particular to computer software. I can assure the House that we are conscious of the computer implications of our policy decisions. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 17 January, in the context of the community charge reduction scheme, we have tried to have regard to local government computer software programmes and have confined the changes that we have made to those likely to have the least effect on the costs that will result.
      My hon. Friend also referred to gerrymandering. I did not think that I would see the day when poor "Mr. Gerry Mander" was dragged into our debates on this little Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Brightside has been to pay homage, as I have, to the tomb of Mr. Gerry—a delightful tomb in Marblehead in Boston in the United States. It is worth a visit. I do not think that we can blame Mr. Gerry Mander for anything that has happened in the House today.
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) made an interesting speech in which he talked about the difficulties surrounding the standard spending assessments. A charge that is often made against us is that it is unfair that one authority should have a different SSA from another. That is particularly so when hon. Members perceive that neighbouring constituencies have more money. The whole point of the SSA system—which is well established—is that the criteria apply equally right across the country.
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central mentioned non-payment. A non-collection estimate has to be made when setting a charge for the future year. In the case of Barnsley, it was 6 per cent., representing an extra £16·79 on the charge. I understand why people in Barnsley resent having to pay more merely because some people refuse to pay the charge. Non-payment denies councils funds and

      357
      shifts the burden onto those who pay. We have given local authorities wide-ranging enforcement powers to help them to keep their charges down.
      I should not omit the hon. Member for Bristol, south (Ms. Primarolo). Bristol is a fine city—a proud and ancient city—and I do not think that it will consider itself well served in this place by someone who will not pay the poll tax, who is leading a community protest and who is proud that 100,000 citizens are not paying their taxes. I hope that all the hon. Lady's constituents realise, when their bills drop through the letterbox, that they are paying for her.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made an interesting constituency speech. We welcome the contribution that the Liberal Democrats have made to our discussion of the review of local government finance and structure. We had a most constructive meeting with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and look forward to the next meeting. I only wish that we could have such a constructive dialogue with the official Opposition.
      As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) made a spirited speech. He made the important point that value for money also means value for people. I sometimes think that Labour authorities find that hard to understand and to stomach.
      The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) has a fine local authority in the fine city of Salford. Some people say that Salford is overshadowed by Manchester. I think that anyone who knows Salford will be able to differentiate between the two cities and I therefore respect what the hon. Lady said. I shall treat her speech as a submission to our review.
      The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) talked about local government expenditure. His remarks took my breath away. He spoke as if local authorities were impoverished institutions that were constantly having their budget slashed by a wicked Government unwilling to enable them to carry out their functions. Local authority spending has increased by 25 per cent. in just two years, yet the Opposition would have us believe that it will be necessary to increase local authority spending by 50 per cent. in three years. That is absolute nonsense. This year alone, an extra £3 billion is going into local government. I suspect that if the Opposition had their way, it could be £30 billion, £300 billion or £3,000 billion and it would still not be considered sufficient.
      Mr. O'Brien: I referred to the Government's cuts in rate support grant. What is the Minister attitude to that question?
      Mr. Key: I shall be delighted to answer that and so illustrate the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not understand local government finance. As he well knows, one has to consider aggregate external finance, which includes rate support grant, non-domestic rates and what the charge payer contributes. Aggregate external financing has increased year after year, with the injection of an extra £3 billion this year alone. The plain fact is that there is no reason why capped authorities should have the opportunity, not available to other authorities to look again at their non-collection estimates.
      The new clause is misconceived in principle. It has no bearing on the purpose of the Bill, which is to protect
      358
      charge payers by guaranteeing that the budget reductions achieved by capping feed through in full to lower charges. I call on the House to reject it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 341.

      Division No. 44]

      [5.57 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fisher, Mark

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Flynn, Paul

      Allen, Graham

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Alton, David

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Anderson, Donald

      Foster, Derek

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Foulkes, George

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Fraser, John

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Fyfe, Maria

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      George, Bruce

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Barron, Kevin

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Battle, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Beckett, Margaret

      Gordon, Mildred

      Beggs, Roy

      Gould, Bryan

      Beith, A. J.

      Graham, Thomas

      Bell, Stuart

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

      Grocott, Bruce

      Benton, Joseph

      Hardy, Peter

      Blair, Tony

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Blunkett, David

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Boateng, Paul

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Boyes, Roland

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bradley, Keith

      Henderson, Doug

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Home Robertson, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Hood, Jimmy

      Caborn, Richard

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Howells, Geraint

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hoyle, Doug

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clay, Bob

      Illsley, Eric

      Clelland, David

      Ingram, Adam

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Janner, Greville

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Corbett, Robin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cousins, Jim

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Crowther, Stan

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Cryer, Bob

      Lambie, David

      Cummings, John

      Lamond, James

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Leighton, Ron

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Darling, Alistair

      Lewis, Terry

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dewar, Donald

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Dixon, Don

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dobson, Frank

      McAllion, John

      Doran, Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Douglas, Dick

      McCartney, Ian

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Eadie, Alexander

      McFall, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      McKelvey, William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      McLeish, Henry

      Fatchett, Derek

      Maclennan, Robert

      Faulds, Andrew

      McMaster, Gordon

      Fearn, Ronald

      McWilliam, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Madden, Max

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

      Maginnis, Ken

      359

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Rowlands, Ted

      Marek, Dr John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Maxton, John

      Sillars, Jim

      Meacher, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Michael, Alun

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

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morley, Elliot

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Stott, Roger

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Strang, Gavin

      Mullin, Chris

      Straw, Jack

      Murphy, Paul

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Nellist, Dave

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      O'Brien, William

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Turner, Dennis

      O'Neill, Martin

      Vaz, Keith

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wallace, James

      Parry, Robert

      Walley, Joan

      Patchett, Terry

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Pendry, Tom

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Prescott, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Radice, Giles

      Wilson, Brian

      Randall, Stuart

      Winnick, David

      Redmond, Martin

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Worthington, Tony

      Reid, Dr John

      Wray, Jimmy

      Richardson, Jo

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Robertson, George

      Rogers, Allan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rooker, Jeff

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Rooney, Terence

      Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brazier, Julian

      Alexander, Richard

      Bright, Graham

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Allason, Rupert

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

      Amess, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Amos, Alan

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Arbuthnot, James

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Burns, Simon

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Burt, Alistair

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Butler, Chris

      Baldry, Tony

      Butterfill, John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carrington, Matthew

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Cash, William

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Body, Sir Richard

      Churchill, Mr

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Boswell, Tim

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Colvin, Michael

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Conway, Derek

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bowis, John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Couchman, James

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Cran, James

      360

      Critchley, Julian

      Irvine, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Curry, David

      Jack, Michael

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

      Jackson, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Janman, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Devlin, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Dicks, Terry

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Dover, Den

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Dunn, Bob

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knapman, Roger

      Eggar, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knowles, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Lang, Ian

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Latham, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Favell, Tony

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Lilley, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Forth, Eric

      Lord, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Franks, Cecil

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Freeman, Roger

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      French, Douglas

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Fry, Peter

      Maclean, David

      Gale, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gardiner, Sir George

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Madel, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mans, Keith

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Marland, Paul

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gorst, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mates, Michael

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gregory, Conal

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grist, Ian

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Ground, Patrick

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Grylls, Michael

      Mills, Iain

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Moate, Roger

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hannam, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Harris, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mudd, David

      Hayes, Jerry

      Needham, Richard

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Norris, Steve

      Hill, James

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hind, Kenneth

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Page, Richard

      Holt, Richard

      Paice, James

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

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

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Pawsey, James

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Portillo, Michael

      361

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Price, Sir David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Raffan, Keith

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Redwood, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Thorne, Neil

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Thurnham, Peter

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tracey, Richard

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Tredinnick, David

      Rost, Peter

      Trippier, David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Trotter, Neville

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ryder, Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Walden, George

      Shelton, Sir William

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Waller, Gary

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Ward, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sims, Roger

      Warren, Kenneth

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Watts, John

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      Speed, Keith

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Speller, Tony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wilkinson, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wilshire, David

      Squire, Robin

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Steen, Anthony

      Wood, Timothy

      Stern, Michael

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Stevens, Lewis

      Yeo, Tim

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Stokes, Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sumberg, David

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      CERTIFICATION OF STATUTORY DUTIES
      '()(1) Sections 1 to 5 below shall have effect subject to the making of an Order under section 6(1), and no such Order shall be made in respect of the first year before the fulfilment of the requirements of this section.
      (2) Before making any Order in respect of the first year under section 6(1) below, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall for the purposes of subsection (3) below lay before Parliament a report specifying

      (a) the principal statutory duties on each class of relevant authority as specified in section 35(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and

      (b) the likely impact on any such statutory duties of any authority which he expects to be required to set a substitute precept or amount in accordance with section 35(1) or 35(4) of the principal Act of the restriction of information on which such a determination may be based arising as a result of this Act.

      (3) The Secretary of State shall, before making any Order to which the above subsections refer, certify that in his opinion no statutory duty of any authority which he expects to be required to set a substitute amount or precept in accordance with sections 35(1) or 35(4) of the principal Act is likely to be breached as a result of the operation of this Act.
      (4) Where in making any determination under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State considers that any statutory duty of an authority concerned is likely to be breached by virtue of the setting of a substitute amount or precept irrespective of the operation of this Act, he shall make reference to this matter in any report laid before Parliament under subsection (2) above.'.—[Mr. Murphy.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 2, in clause 6, page 5, line 28, after 'applies', insert
      `subject to the making of an Order in accordance with section (Certification of Statutory Duties) above'.
      Mr. Murphy: The purpose of the new clause and the amendment is to focus debate on the possible impact of the Bill on authorities that may be in danger of breaching their statutory duties. The amendments propose an order-making, certification and reporting process designed to give Parliament early warning of authorities that may be forced into a breach of their statutory duties and responsibilities. Before the Bill was applied in the first year Secretaries of State would be required under subsection (3) to certify that no authority affected would be forced to breach its statutory duties as a result of the operation of this unwelcome Bill.
      The Bill essentially requires authorities to set substitute amounts in response to a formula and it prevents them from taking into account the latest view of information available to them at the time when the original amount was set. The difference likely to be made in the level of poll tax which may be set may be small but it could, in a critical case, push an authority into a choice between incurring losses and breaching the duties that this House has imposed on them.
      More broadly, the effect of subsections (2) and (4) together is that a report must be laid when capping orders are produced, setting out the main statutory duties of authorities and showing where breaches of such duties may occur as a result of the Act or as a result of capping generally. In other words, when the Secretary of State is made aware that a council's statutory duties and obligations cannot be carried out by an authority, he must tell Parliament. As the Secretary of State must ask Parliament's permission for a whole range of actions to do with local government finance, it would be but a small matter for him, or them—since the Secretary of State for Wales would also be involved—to lay the details before the House of Commons.
      When local authorities recently took the Secretary of State for the Environment to court, the effects of poll tax capping on their statutory responsibilities and duties were not seen as clearly as they are today. There was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said in Committee, some reference to education budgets, but statutory duties were seen in a very general light. Given our experience since then, we now know that sudden changes in council's budgets imposed by Government can have the most disastrous effects on the mandatory and statutory services that they must carry out.
      I should like to mention some of the statutory duties that the Government have imposed on local authorities by means of legislation. The Food Safety Act 1990 lays a general duty on food authorities to enforce legislation and to appoint public analysts. Last year, the Government

      363
      sponsored and the House approved the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which imposes a host of duties and responsibilities on our councils. Local authorities become the enforcement and licensing authorities for air pollution. They have a duty to keep public registers of all pollution licences and to create arm's-length waste disposal companies under the direction of the Secretary of State. They have a duty in respect of waste regulation authorities to licence waste management premises, and so on. Local authorities have many duties to do with waste collection, litter disposal, pollution of the air and of the soil—all of them laid on them by Parliament as a direct result of the legislation.
      6.15 pm
      Last year, Parliament passed the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and even though the Government have postponed financing that Act, it will eventually mean that local authorities will have various duties in respect of community care.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) referred in the previous debate to the problem that his and other local authorities are having with education. Over the past few years, the Government have passed several education Acts. The curiously named Education Reform Act 1988 introduced the national curriculum and local management of schools. The Education Act 1986 had to do with special education. The Education Act 1981 concerned governing bodies, and the Education Act 1962 dealt with student awards. All these Acts, approved by Parliament, laid mandatory duties on local authorities which cost them considerable sums of money.
      Most capped authorities will have made cuts in their education service at a time when the Government are implementing a variety of measures to improve, they say, standards in schools. During the legal action taken by capped authorities against the Secretary of State, various local authorities' officers served affidavits against the Secretary of State highlighting their worries about meeting their statutory duties. One officer said:
      "the council, if called upon to make education cuts, would simply be unable to carry out its statutory functions with respect to education."
      Only yesterday, the Prime Minister saw fit to refer to homelessness and to how he believed that it should be tackled. All of us who have been involved in local authority housing matters are aware that the plight of the homeless is receiving increasing attention from local authorities and the Government; yet the statutory responsibilities that the Government place on local authorities can be met only if they are matched by the necessary money. Limits on expenditure caused by capping will inevitably result in fewer resources to deal with the problem. On top of capping, the Government have exacerbated the problem of homelessness by changing the subsidy arrangements for people housed in short-lease accommodation. That means that authorities must rely on expensive bed-and-breakfast accommodation. So district councils face increasing difficulty in coping with the problem of homelessness.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), with her considerable experience in these matters, mentioned earlier the Children Act 1989. That Act and other social services legislation, such as the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act
      364
      1986, mean that a reduction in social services expenditure caused by capping will affect the most vulnerable sectors of our society.
      Although the main provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act have been postponed, authorities are having to provide services for clients released from institutional care. In addition, limitations on finance make it more difficult for authorities to respond to the requirements of the Children Act. Recent media reports on child abuse have highlighted the importance of valuable resources being devoted to such services, the responsibility for which has been placed on the shoulders of local authorities by this House.
      Local authorities have no choice about carrying out these functions. It has been a common complaint against all Governments, Labour or Conservative, that they under-resource our councils when they impose new duties on them. But this is worse: even when local authorities set a poll tax to cover their legal responsibilities, the scene can, because of this Bill, be changed dramatically, and they will simply run out of money or be forced to reduce vital services which are required by law.
      It is crucial for Parliament to be give such a picture at the time of the setting of the poll tax so that we know that services that we have said must be carried out cannot be carried out because of a Minister's actions. The new clause and amendments would allow Parliament to debate such a critical situation. Even our consideration this evening of the possibility of such an occurrence highlights how dangerous and mischievous this seemingly technical Bill is. The Government would be well advised to accept these changes, if only as a prelude to dropping the whole Bill altogether, for its very existence makes a mockery of the Government's self-confessed claim to want local government accountability, and it certainly flies in the face of the even more ludicrous claim that the Government genuinely want to review or even abolish the poll tax.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The whole o the Bill makes nonsense of the Government's claim to be trying to introduce greater accountability at local level, and these amendments are brought to bear at a point where local government is being made answerable to Parliament, which is a negation of the entire concept of local government. I understand why they have been introduced in their present form: the Government are trying to widen the accountability so that it is not just a matter of the level of poll tax but also refers to the kind of services to be provided. I understand the argument that is being put.
      It would, however, also be appropriate in making any such statement to refer to the extent to which the difficulties in providing services had been exacerbated by non-payment of the tax. First, it would be relevant for people to know at that point how much the authority's ability to provide services had been impaired by campaigns to persuade people not to pay the tax at all.
      It is an increasing source of considerable resentment that there are still campaigns, supported in some cases by Labour Members, to encourage people who can afford to pay not to do so. It would therefore be interesting to see—although in practice one could not have this sort of detail—how much of the non-payment related to people who were liable for the full rate of tax, people who were entitled to no rebate and who might have considerably

      365
      higher incomes, and how much of it related to that section of the population which have been forced to pay 20 per cent. of the tax even though it had very little or no income.
      We are talking about two rather different categories of people: those who could pay but refuse to do so and those who are in genuine and serious difficulty. It would be appropriate for us to know, in considering whether the statutory services could be paid for, if an authority had collected much less of the tax than other authorities. The non-payment element should be considered at this point.
      Secondly, the tax is very difficult to collect in practice. It is particularly difficult to collect in urban areas where there is great mobility of population and from those people who just do not have the money to pay it. That is not a particular partisan observation—it was made by the Audit Commission in a recently published report on the tax. It led the commission to point to the futility of trying to collect the compulsory 20 per cent. from people who simply did not have the money to pay it.
      It is an absurdity in the whole social security-benefit-taxing system that, because of the political requirement that everyone should pay a significant part of the tax, we seek to exact from people money that we know they cannot afford. We know it because we have a social security system which assesses that they cannot, yet we still insist on trying to get that 20 per cent. out of them. In some cases they will be the people who are the targets of the very statutory services threatened by the authority's inability to find enough money.
      Those are two reasons why the statement should be much wider than proposed in the amendment and should refer to the non-payment element, both the deliberate and wilful element and that which arises from the absurdity of the tax. It is one of the many reasons why I believe that the tax should be scrapped and replaced by something that can reasonably be collected because it is both fair and effectively run. I refer to a local income tax.
      This part of the Bill is being regarded with concern, not just by authorities which have already been capped but by those threatened with capping. Earlier today I met city councillors and officers from Newcastle upon Tyne who are watching their budget very anxiously because of the possibility of capping. The people whom I saw were from the social services committee, they were worried about providing one of the statutory services referred to in the amendment. There is a threat to the very important basic services that they provide.
      One, in particular, is of concern to me because it affects my constituency. The authority is having to consider closing the County hotel in Rothbury, which for a long time has provided respite care for hundreds of elderly people and their carers in Newcastle upon Tyne. In large part it is self-financing, but there is a significant element of subsidy, essential because of the character of the care provided and the low incomes of the families to whom it is provided. The accommodation service, which provides employment in my constituency, has brought into the village of Rothbury for many years elderly people from the Tyneside conurbation who clearly benefit from this break in their normal routine, and there is an even greater benefit to the carers who would normally look after them. The service is a potential victim of capping, along with other important services in the city.
      366
      Newcastle spends more on its social services than do many other authorities, including my county of Northumberland, and questions must be asked about the costing and management of services in many of the authorities where the levels of charge are so high. It is difficult to ask those questions—and it is particularly difficult for the general public to ask them—when the system of Government grant to local authorities is as confused and confusing as it now is. It is another illustration that no one really knows who is responsible.
      The Government have managed to bring about a situation in which the general public are confused about whether their authority is a high spender or whether it is the Government's fault because the grant system is all wrong. On the whole, they are inclined to blame the Government, so the Government must get themselves out of the situation by carrying out the sort of fundamental reform about which the Secretary of State is beginning to talk about. I am glad to hear that he is beginning to talk about it, but it still seems a long way away and, unless he pulls a rabbit from a hat, people will carry on blaming the Government and being confused and puzzled by it all.
      My area, Castle Morpeth, has a poll tax which is £100 higher than that of neighbouring authorities. People ask why our authority is not going to be capped. There are two reasons. One is that the borough council spends too little to qualify for capping. The other is that 80 per cent. of the money goes to Northumberland county council. The reason for the £100 difference, however, lies deep in the interstices of the Government grant system and the safety net system. It all relates to the complicated arrangements by which the Government assessed average rateable values; it has absolutely nothing to do with the relative spending levels of the Castle Morpeth authority compared with other authorities. Its spending levels are broadly similar to those of its neighbours.
      The public, however, has no way of understanding these complexities; they are difficult enough for professionals to make sense of, and they further show that the whole debate about capping takes place in an atmosphere and against a background where no one knows or can say with authority who is to blame—certainly no one whom the public is likely to believe. People listen to assertions and counter-assertions from those who have an axe to grind.
      It is depressing that all Conservative Members seem fervently to believe that all Conservative authorities are terribly responsible and that only Labour authorities overspend. A contrary view appears to obtain on the Opposition side. The general public are not much inclined to believe that sort of thing, and it further underlines the case for fundamental reform. Even if the statement envisaged in the new clause is produced and the House had the benefit of the Government's statement along with the capping statement of how statutory services would be affected, I do not think that people would believe that either. The sooner we get rid of this nonsense the better.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Key: The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke about the statutory duties that the House places on local authorities and listed a long catalogue of woes. Under our intended criteria, no authority would be capped if its budget were at or below its standard spending assessment. Those assessments take account of the new

      367
      burdens and duties on authorities, and also take account of scope for greater efficiency and the amount that the country can afford.
      The hon. Member for Torfaen spoke about affidavits submitted by certain local authority officers. It is important to get the matter straight. In their judgment their Lordships said:
      "Capping does not in any way impinge on the rights of members of the authority either as citizens or as councillors, nor does it impugn their collective conduct as either unlawful or discreditable. A difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and the designated authority as to what is the appropriate level at which their community charge and their expenditure should be set is purely a political difference."
      It is important to place that on record.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is not puzzled or confused, as became clear when he came to talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and me. We were grateful to him for coming and for his constructive approach. We welcome his participation. Plainly, we must have a fundamental review of local government. Perhaps it should have been done many years ago. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking these matters forward and I am glad that it is being done with the participation of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
      The new clause and the related amendment seek to delay the operation of the Bill's provisions for any particular year and to place a series of requirements on the Secretary of State. They say that he must make an order and before doing so he must lay a report before Parliament. Before doing that, he must make or issue a certificate in some unspecified way.
      That bizarre and convoluted procedure suggested by the Opposition appears to have as its rationale—such a description is charitable to say the least—the idea that in some way the Bill affects the fulfilment by a capped authority of its statutory duties. Plainly, the Bill affects the duty of a charging authority to reset its charges after capping. That is the whole point. It is to guarantee that charge payers are not denied the full benefits of capping. The behaviour of Lambeth council this year shows that such protection is needed.
      Leaving aside that self-evident point and the complete confusion over the proposed changes between precepting and charging authorities, I have to tell the House that the suggestion that the Bill otherwise affects the capped authorities' fulfilment of their statutory duties is completely unfounded and misconceived. It has no bearing on the matter. The provision of services by capped authorities is not affected by the Bill, which is about the translation of budget cuts, following capping, into commensurate reductions in charges. The Bill is not about capping in general or about the size or implications of budget cuts resulting from the capping of excessive and overblown budgets. Legislation on that is contained in part VII of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
      Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that, essentially, it is the capping of a budget that is derived from the 1988 Act and that ultimately the budget is related to services? Surely if the revenue that can be raised by the community charge or poll tax is limited by an Act of Parliament, that is bound to have an effect upon the statutory duties placed on local authorities.
      Mr. Key: My argument all along and in Committee is that that is not the case. The amount of money in the collection fund is but one factor that an authority will have to consider when setting its budget for the following year. That shows one of the fundamental errors in many of the Opposition's amendments. In terms of the effect of budget reductions required by capping, any cap set would represent the Secretary of State's view of what is reasonable, achievable and appropriate in all the circumstances of each capped authority. There are procedures by which authorities can make representations about proposed caps, and they are fully taken into account by the Secretary of State when he makes his decisions about final capping levels. The first year of capping in which the proposed caps of three authorities were increased shows that those procedures are no mere charade.
      No authority can be free of the need for expenditure restraint and for seeking greater value for money which, as I said earlier, in the end means greater value for people. For next year we have made known for the information of authorities our firm intentions for capping criteria. A t their express request we did that much earlier than in the past. I do not accept any suggestion that capping necessarily leads to disruption of essential services. There is considerable scope for authorities to look carefully at the administration and management of their services to ensure that waste is eliminated and efficiency improved. I suspect that many Opposition Members would be the first to appreciate and recognise that and that many of their authorities would try to achieve it. The new clause is not merely misconceived but completely irrelevant to the Bill's purpose. I urge the House to reject it.
      Mr. Murphy: The purpose of the new clause is that it is only when a local authority's statutory duties and responsibilities are affected adversely by the operation of the Act that a report has to be made to the House. If, as the Minister suggests, the local authority is not affected by the poll tax cap, no report would be made to the House. Therefore, the Government have nothing to lose by accepting the new clause.
      Question put and negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.37 pm
      The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I apologise to the House for my absence during part of our earlier proceedings, but I gather that in my absence hon. Members continued to debate the Bill with all the good humour that characterised our proceedings in Committee. I pay tribute to the Opposition and to my colleagues for the very good spirit in which our debates were conducted.
      I suspect that the House would like me to be brief because this is a short Bill. It has been exhaustively debated and at this stage it would be challenging to make a long speech about it. I remind the House that the Bill's intentions are limited. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), said, the Bill is not about capping in general. However, on several occasions it has given us the opportunity to confirm that the Government stand ready to use their capping powers in the coming year in line with

      369
      criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 31 October when he was Secretary of State for the Environment and which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment confirmed in his statement to the House on 17 January.
      The Bill seeks to close a loophole which could have had serious consequences, and which in any case represented an injustice because it would have allowed local authorities to avoid passing on to community charge payers the benefit that was intended for them by the act of capping. I was considerably surprised to find that the Labour party did not wish to support us at least on the narrow point that, once an authority had been capped and had gone to the length of setting its new budget and making the necessary reductions in spending, the benefit should be made available to community charge payers.
      Mr. Illsley: Again the hon. Gentleman has referred to the idea of the benefit of charge capping being passed on. There are certainly no benefits in my authority from charge capping. It has affected jobs, the music centre, has brought about redundancies and so on.
      Mr. Portillo: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he looks at the reduced community charge bills which people have to pay, he will find I think that the largest reduction in any one authority was £99—and I speak from memory—in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. If the hon. Gentleman speaks to my hon. Friend who represents that borough, he will find that my hon. Friend will speak eloquently about the difference that £99 makes to a community charge payer in Fulham. It makes a very big difference indeed. The hon. Gentleman should not simply be concerned with levels of spending which in themselves tell us nothing about levels of service. He must also be concerned about levels of cost and what people can afford. Local authorities should take that into account, but the Government stand ready to help them to take it into account by means of capping but must, after the operation of this Bill, put it into effect by benefiting charge payers.
      Mr. Illsley: Is the Minister aware that when capping was announced there was considerable public debate? There was even more public debate when it was found that, as a consequence of charge capping, children in my authority cannot now go swimming from school. Schools have stopped all swimming. Furthermore, children cannot learn music at a centre of excellence which had to be closed and teachers made redundant.
      Those are the so-called benefits from charge capping. The charge payers in my area had their bills reduced by £59. If the level of public debate, in the local press and in the media in general, including a petition delivered to 10 Downing street containing tens of thousands of signatures, was anything to go by, people would have accepted the original legislation. They would have liked to have the opportunity to retain the benefits of swimming facilities under the education system, the music centre and all the rest of it. Once again, I point out that in Barnsley there are no benefits from charge capping.
      Mr. Portillo: In a way, the hon. Gentleman makes my point for me, although he does not mean to do so. I do not accept that the consequences that he describes necessarily flow from charge capping. Let us for a moment suppose
      370
      that they did. All the changes in spending having been made, and also the reductions in service, would the hon. Gentleman then wish to see the reduced charges denied to the community charge payer? I know the hon. Gentleman to be a rational and reasonable person and I should have thought that he would say that, at the very least, if all that pain has been suffered, there should be some offsetting benefit, which is that people pay £59 less in community charge.
      In the borough of Lambeth, the process having been gone through and reductions having been made, the borough sought to deny in full the benefit in reduced community charging. That is the limited point in this Bill. We thought that what happened in Lambeth was unacceptable.
      We also thought that there was another important point of principle: that all boroughs, whether capped or not, should be put on all fours with each other. No other council, once it has set its charge for the year, can go back in mid year and alter its estimate of the number of people who will be paying community charge. No other council will have the luxury of going back in mid year and changing its idea about what the community charge should be. We do not believe that, just because an authority has been capped, it should be put in a different position. We thought that what happened in the Lambeth case was quite wrong and thought it essential to put the position right. We are determined that there should be no repetition of that.
      We have been surprised that the Labour party, on this narrow point, has still sought to affirm the right of local authorities, having made the necessary reductions, still to deny to their community charge payers the benefit of those reductions. We are determined that that should not be repeated. That is why I commend this short Bill to the House, and urge that it should go to another place.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), is departing as I was about to ask him to have a word with the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) about his earlier remarks—not least the inappropriateness of his words about dyslexia, never mind his astonishing remarks, in view of the circumstances, about breweries. Perhaps hon. Members on the Treasury Bench will pass those thoughts on to the Secretary of State.
      We have already stated in Committee and this evening that this Bill was ill-timed and is an irrelevence. We believed that it was ill-conceived when it was first brought forward, but circumstances have overtaken it. It is now superfluous as well as an inconvenience and an irrelevance. Therefore, we shall be voting against it.
      The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities suggests that it is a surprise to him that the Labour party is against this Bill as it is merely a tidying-up exercise, consequent on ill drafting—he did not say that, but it clearly is such an exercise. It is a consequence of the ill drafting that flowed from the 1988 Act. That is astonishing, given that we trawled through the legislation for three months often late into the night and the early hours of the morning. I remember it well. It resulted in my ending up in hospital with pneumonia, which was a great relief after sitting through that Bill. Nevertheless, here we are with a sort of afterthought—a little pimple on the

      371
      original Bill. But the pimple is a bit more than that. It is more like a boil. That is why we have chosen to lance it if we can. We think that that would be in the best interests of the overall health of the patient. In this case the patient is what remains of local democracy.
      The poll tax capping legislation and the way in which it has been imposed allow the Government to set the figure for spending. Of course, the Government assumed that there was a simple equation between the setting of the figure for spending and the subsequent poll tax. This Bill reflects the belief that there is a simple equation to be imposed which, inevitably, will result in a particular poundage. We do not accept that. We believe that the information on which the Government need to work should take fully into account the local circumstances about which the officials and councillors at local level are in the best position to make a judgment. The Government are not in such a position. Those changed circumstances arise directly from the consequences of capping.
      When an authority is capped, there is an inevitable delay in the imposition of the poll tax at local level. There is a change in the likely collection level, as there is in terms of the equated and relevant population levels. Therefore, there is a danger that the collection of the poll tax will result in a shortfall to the collection fund. If that happens, there will be consequences which, apart from protecting the poll tax payer, will have an adverse result.
      The Minister in charge of the Bill and Committee members constantly referred to hapless poll tax payers. We thought it an appropriate phrase. In fact, the hapless poll tax payer would not get the benefits that he believes this Bill will bring to him. Poll tax capping has a detrimental effect on services and the provision of services is what local authorities are all about, rather than low taxation. They are about value for money and the relationship between the tax raised and the level of services provided.
      The whole intention of a local authority is not to levy no tax and provide no services. I know that new recruits today on the Conservative Benches believe that. The new recruits are people like the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) who has just joined the Minister of State in the No Turning Back group. She said this afternoon that she believed in compulsory tendering rather than compulsory competitive tendering, which was in the document recently published by the No Turning Back group. It must come as a revelation to the Minister to have recruits to the group, just at the moment when we all believed that it was about to be disbanded. That is life after death indeed. It suggests that there may be movements and murmurings, which we suspected existed, to show that the lady who departed No. 10 just a few weeks before Christmas lies in the shadows after all, waiting, watching and encouraging. That is a sign that things are on the move.
      Of course, what is not on the move is the poll tax—[Interruption.] I must correct myself. The poll tax is on the move—it is in reverse gear and going backwards, and tonight poll tax capping and the Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill are going with it. Why did the Government continue with the Bill? Even if it was relevant before last week, it is certainly not relevant now.
      As I said earlier, if the Government introduce so-called relief in the form of a new community charge relief scheme, and if that brings into equilibrium the present year's bills—with the promise of a £104 maximum payment compared with the old rates—the logic is that capping will
      372
      be abandoned to allow people to make a clear judgment between different local authorities, and between different parties within local authorities, as from this year to next. That is the logic, so capping becomes an irrelevance unless any vestige of accountability has been abandoned and the Government do not want a clearer indication between different parties and different local authorities upon which the electorate can make a judgment. Capping would interfere with that judgment.
      Not only does the Secretary of State now have the ability to fix the relationship between the current bills and the previous rate bills, which we shall be debating next week, but under capping he has the ability to determine next year's bills, and therefore their relationship with this year's bills. That takes away any vestige of decision-making by a local authority and any judgment by the local electorate about the responsibility of those elected local councillors for their decisions. It is a mess.
      It is important to spell out exactly what the Government's responsibilities are, so that if people are worried about the cuts in services and the dangers to their education, social services, leisure and protection services, they will understand that it is the Government who are at fault. The Government have the power to determine the exact level of poll tax being levied—and, under the Bill, can determine the exact poundage—so the electorate should be aware that it is the Government who are at fault. If people do not like the unholy mess of the Government setting the poll tax and determining the cuts, the Government are at fault again. Whether it is cuts in services, poll tax levels, administrative chaos, or an unholy mess at local level, only one set of people is to blame—Conservative Ministers. They have brought it upon themselves because they have bound, gagged and generally put aside any vestiges of local democracy.
      There is universal capping, universal suffering and universal centralisation. Ministers are responsible for the whole mess. That is the logic and the outturn of the Bill. However, we have revealed some grave misunderstandings among Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West did not even understand the difference between equalisation and standard spending assessments. She revealed that she is now wholly committed to the SSAs, which only a few weeks ago she declared herself to be against.
      The formula has not changed and the implementation has not changed—only minds have changed. Of course, everybody is open to persuasion, arm twisting and pressure, but the SSAs have not altered and nor has the amount put into revenue support. All that has altered is a commitment from Conservative Back Benchers, on a wing and a prayer, in the hope that the new Secretary of State will bring them some promise and relief to get them through the general election. The Bill shows that there is no hope of that.
      Whatever happens, there will be capping. Whatever happens, there will be greater centralisation. With that greater centralisation will come more determination of the services provided at local level. In other words, we will continue to get what we have now, but with a slight change of formula. Perhaps there will be a property tax together with the poll tax. Perhaps there will be centralised delivery of major services together with the poll tax. Perhaps there will be a property tax, greater centralisation and the poll tax. We could end up with all three. Whatever happens,

      373
      there will be the same mess as we are in tonight because the same ideology and values will be imposed upon the same people.
      The electorate will not be fooled by what is happening today or by what we debate next Tuesday. That is why we are asking that the Bill be set aside. It has wasted a great deal of time. We have endeavoured to get the Minister to go back to the Department to fight his corner for poll tax as best he can. We have tried to concentrate on the key issues rather than becoming bogged down in the algebraic formulae. We hope that from today's debate and from our debates in Committee people will have learnt a little more about local government and about the importance of allowing decisions to be taken at local level.
      Hon. Members might not be aware that in advocating that the Secretary of State should have the right, under the Bill, to determine the exact contribution from the poll tax payer to the collection fund, they have missed a provision that already exists in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Section 99(4) of that Act already gives the Secretary of State the power to do what one Conservative Member proclaimed should have been necessary in authorities which managed, through creativity or by drawing on reserves, to avoid capping. That section allows the Secretary of State to demand adjustments in the amount placed in the collection fund if he believes that that fund exceeds the figure necessary to provide the agreed services voted through a council. Of course, that would apply whether or not that council was capped because it would be the same formula.
      However, that has not been included in the Bill. The only reason for that, and the only reason for the Bill, is simply that the Government lost their court case against Lambeth. It is a piece of spite. The Government simply could not be defeated by Lambeth, of all boroughs. They could not face the fact that the High Court had proclaimed that, on this occasion, Lambeth had it right. After all that had happened over the years with court cases and with obiter dicta, when judges said that they sympathised with local government and understood why it had taken certain actions, but that nevertheless the Secretary of State had the drafting right in legislation and all power rested in Marsham street, suddenly all power did not rest there. The last tiny vestige of power to determine the poll tax level and to ensure that the collection fund was adequate to meet a given level of services was taken out of the hands of the Secretary of State. Lambeth won. As a consequence, we have wasted our time on this Bill. That is what it is all about.
      The Government had the power under section 99(4) and through recent decisions to fix next year's bills through universal capping, and to compare next year's bills through the new charge relief scheme. All those things exist and all the powers are there; but Lambeth had won. We believe that capping is unnecessary; we believe that poll tax is unworkable and we think that the Government should come clean and admit defeat. They should withdraw the Bill, withdraw the poll tax and adopt our alternative. Let us go back to a common-sense scheme which will give cheaper bills, more equality and equity and greater fairness. Let us have a modern property tax, adjusted according to the ability to pay, to provide decent services for the people who vote for local authorities.
      7 pm
      Mr. Beith: Why have we been asked to give a Third Reading to this Bill? The Bill is before us because the courts found that there was a small gap in the Government's ability to dictate what should be the level of poll tax paid in certain local authorities. The gap was that the local authority could still charge a higher poll tax than its reduced expenditure, as a result of capping, would allow. Why is it necessary for us to give a Third Reading to the Bill in order to fill that gap? The Government have pointed out how ludicrous it would be for a local authority, having been forced to cut its services drastically by capping, not then to reduce the poll tax paid by its poll tax payers. They would be suffering a double pain and the Minister has pointed out that this would be an extraordinary consequence—so extraordinary that it would seem sufficient to remind the people of that state of affairs and invite them to the react accordingly when next given the opportunity to elect their local authority. It might well lead them to throw out the people who were in charge and replace them with others. Indeed, the whole capping mechanism seems to beg the question why the behaviour of local authorities, which the Government criticise so strongly, is not so repugnant that they get thrown out by the electorate which put them there in the first place.
      There are a number of reasons why the Government have felt obliged to press ahead with this Bill rather than relying on the good sense of the local electorate. One reason is that the local electorate does not have the means to exercise its good sense because the electoral system distorts the choice that it can make. The Government know that. They are reluctant to change it because of the wider implications. It might increase the pressure for electoral reform at national level. The Government must know that; otherwise they would be ready to abandon this Bill and rely on the local electorate to throw out a local authority that visits upon the people an excessively high poll tax, even when the services have been cut because of capping. The Government are well aware that there are fiefdoms of one-party rule which arise from not having a fair electoral system. There are local authorities in which opposition voices cannot be adequately heard.
      There is a second reason why the Government have felt obliged to press ahead to the Third Reading. They brought before us and enacted a tax which, in their view, should have made this Bill unnecessary. They brought forward a tax which was supposed to be so simple and so clear that everybody would understand that if they were being asked to pay too much they would react accordingly at the polls. But the people do not understand and the system is extremely complicated because it is such a bad tax. It is a flat-rate tax which does not take proper account of the ability to pay. Therefore, it has had to be cushioned and modified in more and more ways. Last week we had details of the next way in which it has to be cushioned. That cushioning is necessary because it is such a bad tax. In our view, it needs to be abolished and replaced with a local income tax. Until we have a tax that is related to ability to pay and can be collected by a competent system—we suggest the use of the existing PAYE system—all the cushioning will continue to be necessary. Therefore, local electors will not know precisely who is responsible for their high charges and, again, that will be a justification for capping. The Government will feel that they must cap the

      375
      charges of the local authorities and the local electorate cannot know whose fault it is that their charges are so high.
      Some of the charges that are the subject of capping are grotesquely high. The Lambeth poll tax level is ludicrously high. It should be self-evident that there is something wrong. The Government have only themselves to blame that they have produced a system that is so confusing that even under a reformed electoral system it is conceivable that the electorate of Lambeth would visit upon itself such an appallingly high tax.
      The Government are pressing ahead with the Third Reading of the Bill because they do not have a proper electorate system for local authorities and they do not have a proper tax base for local government. The very fact that they are prepared to proceed to Third Reading shows clearly that they are not so handicapped as they pretend in their ability to do something about the situation. They are proceeding here with primary legislation, but in the discussions that have been referred to which I and my hon. Friends have had with Ministers the Government have been very shy about having primary legislation. They did not want to face the problems involved in bringing legislation before the House which might abolish the poll tax and replace it or modify it radically. That legislation might have been more welcome to this side of the House than the Bill we are now discussing.
      Why are the Government so shy about primary legislation when they are prepared to undertake it in this respect? It is intriguing that they did not follow the line of primary legislation on capping which the Secretary of State had previously advocated. He put forward proposals which would have required a modification of this Bill. Under the proposals that he advanced capping would have continued, but there would then have been an election. A new election would have taken place—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech which is much wider than a conventional Third Reading speech. He has referred to electoral reform, local income tax and the general faults of the community charge. I wish that he would address himself specifically to the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Beith: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am drawing to a conclusion and pointing out why hon. Members should not vote for the Third Reading. I refer to the absence from it of the provision previously advocated by the Secretary of State under which, when all these procedures had been gone through and when the Government's intention of capping had been announced, it would then have been possible for an election to take place in which the local electors could have said, "Never mind, we will put up with this level of charge." That has not been put into the Bill. The Government have taken the opportunity of primary legislation and wasted it on fiddling around with the capping system which would not be necessary if the tax and the election system were both fair. There I rest my case. The Bill should not be given a Third Reading.
      7.8 pm
      Miss Kate Hoey: I shall be brief because many of the points raised tonight have been discussed in Committee. As one of the Members who represent
      376
      Lambeth, the borough which has featured most in this Bill in terms of the number of references made to it by other speakers, I wish to make one or two relevant points.
      The Minister talked about closing loopholes. We are all very clear about this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) put it better than If could possibly do. He pointed out that the Bill is a vindictive measure which has been introduced to try to prevent Lambeth from doing what it has proved it was legally right to do. The House needs to be reminded that what we are talking about is not Lambeth behaving irresponsibly or in a way that was outside the law. We have to remind the Minister of this repeatedly because he does not seem to take account of it. I remind him of what the judge said in court. Mr. Justice Otton said that Lambeth council had behaved reasonably and that the councillors had approached their task with care. That is important, because I am getting rather fed up with hearing people continually lambasting Lambeth council.
      We all know that there is room for improvement in any local authority. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) continually make that point to the leaders of the council and to others. But for Ministers continually to attack Lambeth when Mr. Justice Otton has found that it had not acted illegally does not help to establish a good working relationship between them.
      The people of Lambeth are not stupid; they are intelligent. The Labour majority in Lambeth and the percentage of people who voted Labour at the council elections increased, despite the fact that it was known that the poll tax was likely to be £548. The electorate knew that: it wanted a Labour council because they were able to look across the border and see the effect of Tory councils in boroughs such as Wandsworth. People in Lambeth would obviously like a lower poll tax, but more important is what services are being delivered and how that is done.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood and I realise, that there have to be improvements, and those are being worked out. The district auditor has said clearly that Lambeth council faces considerable problems but that he, is encouraged by recent initiatives to address the underlying weaknesses. That work is a major undertaking for the council, and I hope that the initial progress can be maintained. Lambeth council needs some support from the Government: it does not want to be attacked at every possible level and at every opportunity.
      We are about to give a Third Reading to a Bill which prevents reasonable circumstances from being taken into consideration when a council is capped. We have not been able today to debate amendment No. 1 which would have taken into account the fact that no business or Government Department would expect to have to take new decisions on the basis of old and outdated information, and local authorities should be no different. They should be able to look at the changed circumstances, many of which have been outlined by other hon. Members.
      For example, local authorities should be able to take into account such things as changes in population, how many people are paying their poll tax and, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the way in which inner-city areas experience influxes of population. Even the most efficient authority, in an area where there is a willingness to pay the poll tax—which is often not the case because many simply find it difficult to do so—should still have such discretion. We have not been able to discuss today the amendment which sought to

      377
      achieve that. A borough with high unemployment such as Lambeth cannot be treated in the same way as local authorities elsewhere which have not been capped.
      The Opposition are opposed to the poll tax, the essential characteristic of which was meant to be accountability. Lambeth people voted for a Labour council on the basis of a high poll tax. The high poll tax remains, but services have had to be cut drastically and Lambeth people now face the possibility of an even higher poll tax next year because of the Government's policy and the changes which have in no way helped our borough.
      The Government may think that the more vindictive they are towards the people of Lambeth, the more that they attack Lambeth council, the more that they try to publicise some of the rather silly things that any local authority might do, using that as a political weapon, the more the ordinary average decent person of Lambeth will be convinced that the only way to effect the changes that they want in their borough with a tax that they can afford will be to kick out the Government by solidly voting Labour at the next election.
      7.14 pm
      Mr. Illsley: I want to make only a few brief comments, because most of the arguments have already been gone through. This is a narrow Bill. The reasons for closing the Lambeth loophole are debatable and could have been motivated by political spite. It is clear that the Bill and the recently published regulations setting out the criteria for charge capping simply remove any last vestige of accountability for the poll tax. Charge capping destroyed the accountability so revered by the Government and the basis on which they put forward the poll tax as their flagship.
      This year, as we have seen, not only has charge capping been retained, but so has the percentage limit on each authority's budget. As we have progressed, further restrictions have been imposed on local authorities, preventing the electorate from voting for the level of poll tax that they would like. The electorate does not have the luxury of going to the polls to vote against a poll tax which they believe is too high, because the Government have already taken the action for them, reducing it through charge capping and ensuring that charge capping passes on the full benefit, as the Minister calls it, although I would disagree.
      The Bill is unnecessary. The poll tax as it stands cannot survive much longer. I was amused when the Secretary of State said last year that there would be a two-year review, which obviously puts it after the next general election. I am sure that many Conservative Members were as dismayed as I was when they heard that.
      The revenue support grant levels that have been recently announced also show that the Secretary of State is rather more committed to the poll tax than he would have had us believe last year during the election campaign for the Conservative party leadership. I recall statements made at that time by all three of the main protagonists that the poll tax would be amended.
      The Bill is absurd. Its main purpose is to attack a Labour-controlled authority. When an authority is being capped, it makes no sense not to take account of the information relevant at that time. The Minister said earlier
      378
      that authorities should not be allowed to change their poll tax in mid-year. He said that authorities are all in the same boat. But with this Bill, they are clearly not all in the same boat because if the Bill is applied an authority has been singled out for charge capping, so it is not in the same position as the other local authorities. Therefore, it could be argued that, when such capping is applied, authorities should be able to take into account the shortfall in their collection to avoid passing that on to charge payers in the following year.
      Standard spending assessments are the root of all evil when it comes to the poll tax. They are the basis of the charge and of charge capping and, when they are unfairly set, there are bound to be instances when charge capping is implemented. When an authority's standard spending assessments are held at a low level it will be forced to make cuts.
      It is not simply a matter of SSA differences between areas; it is a matter of gross unfairness or, even worse, gross incompetence in setting the SSA. We have heard repeatedly today about the incompetence of local government, but perhaps it is the incompetence of the Government in setting the SSA so low that has caused all the problems relating to charge capping.
      There can be no justification for the SSA differences that we highlighted in Committee. There is no justification for capping authorities when the standard spending assessment is determined on the basis of cost cutting. Obviously there is no justification for the Bill, and we shall vote against it.
      7.21 pm
      Mr. O'Brien: This is the fifty-second or fifty-third Bill to have been targeted by the Conservatives at local government over the past 11 years. It has been unnecessary from the very beginning. The explanatory and financial memorandum says:
      "Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 imposes on charging authorities duties to set substitute amounts for their personal community charges in certain circumstances."
      The circumstances referred to will arise when the Secretary of State decides that certain authorities should be capped because of the level of the charges levied to provide the services demanded by the electorate.
      However, Lambeth took on and beat the Government and, as a result, we have this Bill, which I consider to be misleading in many respects and unnecessary in others. I quote again from the explanatory and financial memorandum:
      "The Bill has no implications for central government finance. And it has no significant cost implications for local authorities."
      That, in my opinion, is totally misleading. There is solid evidence that the Bill has, and will continue to have, financial implications for local authorities. Indeed, some of those implications will be significant.
      The Audit Commission has warned the Government that in many districts more than 10 per cent. of this year's community charge proceeds may prove to be irrecoverable. According to the commission, that may result in community charge payers having to pay an additional amount of as much as £42 in 1991. The commission is issuing to local authorities guidelines for the purpose of assessing the likely extent of non-payment. That is not a Labour-controlled body—it is a Government body—yet it is warning that people will be unable to pay the poll tax

      379
      and that chasing those people will be very expensive. Thus, the Bill does have financial implications. The commission says:
      "The Government, in its £381·41 target charge, has made no allowance for the non-collection facility."
      I can tell the Minister that numerous local authorities are finding it difficult to collect the community charge from all the registered payers in their areas. It is recorded that more than 100,000 people who are registered in Leeds will not be residing at their permanent addresses. The Leeds city council will receive no community charge payment from those people, and it will be impossible to trace many of them as they will have left the area. Yet the Secretary of State says that the community charge level takes no account of that circumstance. It is a situation that will afflict all local authorities, particularly those in cities, which will find it most difficult to keep registers up to date. The cost of maintaining registers will have to be taken into consideration, but the Secretary of State ignores the fact that that will result in an additional burden on poll tax payers.
      The Bill is targeted at local government. There is no justification for it and the Opposition will divide the House on Third Reading. We have requested that no order to cap an authority be made until the Secretary of State reports to the House the likely impact on the services that the local authority has a responsibility to deliver.
      It has been pointed out that over the past 11 years the Government have repeatedly introduced legislation imposing additional responsibilities on local authorities. I refer, for instance to laws affecting children, the environment, fire services and civil defence. Housing benefit is another matter which local authorities have been required to attend to. Then there are such matters as environmental health. I put it to the House that without proper funding there will have to be cuts in services. As a result of the levels set by the Secretary of State, many of the authorities that are required to discharge these statutory responsibilities face tremendous problems in securing a collection fund capable of ensuring the provision of services. The Bill is grossly unfair and undemocratic. There is substantial evidence that it will adversely affect the ability of local authorities to discharge their statutory responsibilities. The local authority in Leeds has more statutory responsibilities than many others—responsibilities, indeed, equal to those of authorities to which the Secretary of State has given an additional allocation under the RSG formula.
      Leeds has a large ethnic population, for which it has a statutory responsibility to cater. Leeds must also provide facilities for visitors. It is a regional centre, it excels in the provision of professional services and many people visit the city. That leads to greater pressure on the local authority's highway network, and traffic management facilities must also be improved. There is also a greater demand for more leisure facilities. Although a charge is made for all that, there has to be a public subsidy. The costs facing the local authority in Leeds are such that if the Secretary of State insists on expenditure being curtailed, the authority will face capping.
      Because Leeds is a regional centre, the rents of commercial properties are higher than they are in many other areas and that affects the city's budget. Tourism in the area is also a growing industry. However,—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We cannot, on Third Reading, have a review of the services provided by any of the authorities that have been charge capped.
      Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just making the point that the Local Government Finance Act 1988 includes the provisions that Ministers are now seeking in this Bill. There is no justification for this Bill.
      If the 1988 Act contains the necessary provisions, why are we debating this Bill tonight? The 1988 Act includes the necessary provisions because they were intended to cover the kind of things that we have discussed today. We tabled amendments today to allow local authorities to take account of any changes in circumstances or of new information becoming available to them between the setting of their original poll taxes and the setting of the capping level. At no time in Committee or in the House tonight have the Government justified the need for the Bill. It is not necessary and it does nothing to enhance the services or the financing of local government. It is not justified and we will oppose its Third Reading.
      7.32 pm
      Mr. Portillo: With the leave of the House, I will reply. I sense that the House wants to vote, and the arguments have been debated fully already. I want simply to address one point that was made by several hon. Members, and in particular by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), and that is the idea that there is anything vindictive about the Bill.
      The Bill is not vindictive. We do not claim that Lambeth acted illegally and the matter was tested in the courts. However, following the Lambeth case, there was a loophole which we had to fill. The hon. Member for Vauxhall wrestled with a good deal of embarrassment. She knows that her council does several daft things which she had to admit she is forced to attack from time to time. However, she is bound to that council because it is run by her party.
      Vindictiveness may have occurred in Lambeth's decision to try to deny to its community charge payers the benefit of having reduced its budget. The Bill corrects that vindictiveness, and for that reason I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
      The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 225.

      Division No. 45]

      [7.33 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Alexander, Richard

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Allason, Rupert

      Bottomley, Peter

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Baldry, Tony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brazier, Julian

      Batiste, Spencer

      Bright, Graham

      Bellingham, Henry

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

      Bendall, Vivian

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Budgen, Nicholas

      381

      Burns, Simon

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Butler, Chris

      Hayes, Jerry

      Butterfill, John

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hayward, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Cash, William

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hill, James

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hind, Kenneth

      Chope, Christopher

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Churchill, Mr

      Holt, Richard

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Irvine, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Cran, James

      Jack, Michael

      Critchley, Julian

      Janman, Tim

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jessel, Toby

      Curry, David

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Day, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dicks, Terry

      Key, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Dover, Den

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Dunn, Bob

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knapman, Roger

      Eggar, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knowles, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lang, Ian

      Fallon, Michael

      Latham, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lilley, Peter

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lord, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Franks, Cecil

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Freeman, Roger

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      French, Douglas

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fry, Peter

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gale, Roger

      Maclean, David

      Gardiner, Sir George

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      Madel, David

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Mans, Keith

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Maples, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marland, Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marlow, Tony

      Gorst, John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mates, Michael

      Gregory, Conal

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Grist, Ian

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Ground, Patrick

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Grylls, Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hague, William

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mills, Iain

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hannam, John

      Moate, Roger

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

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Harris, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      382

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Squire, Robin

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mudd, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Stern, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Stevens, Lewis

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stokes, Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Norris, Steve

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Paice, James

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Patnick, Irvine

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thorne, Neil

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Portillo, Michael

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Tracey, Richard

      Price, Sir David

      Tredinnick, David

      Raffan, Keith

      Trippier, David

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Trotter, Neville

      Rathbone, Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Riddick, Graham

      Viggers, Peter

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Walden, George

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Waller, Gary

      Rost, Peter

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Ward, John

      Ryder, Richard

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Warren, Kenneth

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Watts, John

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wells, Bowen

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Shelton, Sir William

      Whitney, Ray

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wilkinson, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Sims, Roger

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wood, Timothy

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Speed, Keith

      Speller, Tony

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. Tim Boswell.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Blunkett, David

      Allen, Graham

      Boateng, Paul

      Alton, David

      Boyes, Roland

      Anderson, Donald

      Bradley, Keith

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Buckley, George J.

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Caborn, Richard

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Battle, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Beckett, Margaret

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beggs, Roy

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Beith, A. J.

      Cartwright, John

      Bell, Stuart

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Bellotti, David

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clay, Bob

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

      Clelland, David

      Benton, Joseph

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      383

      Cohen, Harry

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hardy, Peter

      Corbett, Robin

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Haynes, Frank

      Cousins, Jim

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cryer, Bob

      Henderson, Doug

      Cummings, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Darling, Alistair

      Home Robertson, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

      Howells, Geraint

      Dewar, Donald

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Dixon, Don

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Dobson, Frank

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Doran, Frank

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Douglas, Dick

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Illsley, Eric

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Ingram, Adam

      Eadie, Alexander

      Janner, Greville

      Eastham, Ken

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Fatchett, Derek

      Kilfedder, James

      Fearn, Ronald

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lambie, David

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

      Lamond, James

      Fisher, Mark

      Leighton, Ron

      Flynn, Paul

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lewis, Terry

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Litherland, Robert

      Foster, Derek

      Livingstone, Ken

      Foulkes, George

      Livsey, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      McAllion, John

      George, Bruce

      McCartney, Ian

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      McFall, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McKelvey, William

      Gordon, Mildred

      McLeish, Henry

      Gould, Bryan

      McMaster, Gordon

      Graham, Thomas

      McWilliam, John

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Madden, Max

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      384

      Marek, Dr John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Salmond, Alex

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martlew, Eric

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maxton, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Short, Clare

      Meale, Alan

      Sillars, Jim

      Michael, Alun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Soley, Clive

      Morley, Elliot

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Stott, Roger

      Mullin, Chris

      Strang, Gavin

      Murphy, Paul

      Straw, Jack

      Nellist, Dave

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Brien, William

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Turner, Dennis

      O'Neill, Martin

      Vaz, Keith

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wallace, James

      Parry, Robert

      Walley, Joan

      Patchett, Terry

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Pendry, Tom

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Radice, Giles

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Randall, Stuart

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Redmond, Martin

      Wilson, Brian

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Winnick, David

      Reid, Dr John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Robertson, George

      Worthington, Tony

      Rogers, Allan

      Wray, Jimmy

      Rooker, Jeff

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Rooney, Terence

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mr. Allen McKay.

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

Housing Support Grant (Scotland)
7.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following two motions on the Order Paper: No. 3:
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
No. 4:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 2550), dated 12th December 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be annulled.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I know that a considerable number of hon. Members hope to catch your eye this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I therefore propose to keep my opening remarks brief.
The housing support grant system has now been with us for 12 years and the House is familiar with the way in which it operates. Essentially, housing support grant is a deficit subsidy paid to those local authorities which, on the basis of reasonable assumptions about income and expenditure, would find it difficult to meet the costs of council housing from rental income. Full details of the grant settlement for next year are set out in the relevant grant order, and I shall discuss them shortly.
I should like to express my thanks to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with which both grant orders have been discussed. Although the convention has expressed reservations about certain aspects of the settlement, I am grateful for the constructive and helpful approach that it takes in our annual discussion of these matters.
Before commenting on next year's settlement, I propose to spend a little time on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order. It makes changes in the amounts of grant payable during the current year. It is customary to bring forward a variation order if there is a significant change in the level of interest rates estimated to apply to local authority borrowing. For example, last year we brought forward a variation order to increase the level of housing support grant in 1989–90 by nearly £5 million because the estimate of the pool interest rate in that year had increased. This year, a significant change in the estimated pool interest rate has again occurred, but this time it is in a downward direction. We now estimate that the pool or average rate of interest for 1990–91 will be 10·1 per cent. That figure may be compared with the estimate of 10·2 per cent. used in the grant calculations for the Housing Support Grant Order for 1990–91 approved by the House a year ago. Because of this reduction in the estimate of the pool rate, the eligible expenditure of local authorities on loan charges in 1990–91 is now estimated to be less than it was when estimated last January. It follows from this that authorities need less grant than anticipated. Therefore, and in accordance with the usual practice, the variation order now before the House reduces the total amount of grant payable from £59·6 million to £58 million.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have a brief question. Why are the Government so appallingly harsh and insensitive in their dealings with Inverclyde district council? The council has appalling housing, with problems of dampness, and there is massive unemployment in the area. The housing problems are a disgrace. Yet we receive no help whatever from this supposedly caring Scottish Office Minister.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency and seen the housing there. Some remarkable successes have been achieved. I tell the hon. Gentleman what I tell other local authorities. Of course, we shall provide as much public expenditure as we can, but thereafter it should consider all the other possibilities and make arrangements with housing associations and, indeed, the private sector. I vividly remember one street in the hon. Gentleman's constituency where, through an arrangement with Wimpey, the derelict houses have been renovated. It was significant that those who then occupied the houses were people who had lived in the local community previously. Such possibilities should be followed up by each local council.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister do two things? First, will he enlarge on the strong representations which the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has made on the matter? Secondly, will he accept that local councils such as Strathkelvin and Monklands—my two district councils—are genuinely worried that the order does not reflect the needs of the area? Does he accept that if there is a moratorium on housing grants, or if the calculation of sales of council houses is not matched by events, he will accept responsibility for that, agree to review it and introduce a measure that reflects the real needs which have been brought to his attention?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman takes me away from the order, but I shall endeavour to answer his question. The crux of the matter is the gross allocation for 1990–91, announced in December 1989, of £418·3 million, excluding £3 million set aside for the urban partnerships, with the mid-year stock figure of 747,713. That represents an average investment per house of £559.
The gross allocation that we announced on 5 December for 1991–92, again excluding the £8 million set aside for the urban partnerships, is £406·8 million. The estimated mid-year stock figure is 727,277, representing an average investment per house of £559. That means that the spending per house will be maintained. However, the House must take into account that the stock decreases as a considerable number of council houses are sold. The final allocations will be made in due course.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If I may return to the orders, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
The main order for 1991–92 provides that the total grants payable next year will be £55·4 million. That sum represents the difference between the eligible expenditure and the relevant income of those authorities which, in the absence of grant, would have a deficit on their housing

387
revenue accounts. The main components of eligible expenditure are loan charges and management and maintenance spending. It is a deficit subsidy.
The loan charges which we estimate that authorities will have to meet in the next financial year are based on a projection of each authority's capital debt to the mid-point of the 1991–92 financial year, taking account of new borrowing and debt redemption. In order to calculate interest charges, we apply to these projections of capital debt the pool interest rate expected for local authority borrowing in 1991–92. Our present estimate of this rate is 10 per cent. I appreciate that interest rates fluctuate, but I can assure the House that, if there is a significant change in the estimate of the pool rate, we shall, as normal, bring forward an appropriate variation order. For the moment, our estimate of loan charges for all authorities in 1991–92 is £497 million.
Mr. Kirkwood: The variations in the notional interest rates are not worth a candle compared to the disruption that they will cause. Certainly they are not an accurate reflection of the real interest charges that smaller local authorities will have to pay. I understand that if one has a large debt it is possible to do a deal and finance one's borrowings at about 10 per cent. But it is impossible for smaller local authorities to do that. More importantly, will the Minister confirm that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made representations to the effect that such changes at this stage of the game make matters doubly difficult? It is the eleventh hour in the current financial year. The sums involved are not worth the disruption that the changes will cause.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That point was raised by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) when he brought a deputation to see me. I told him and the representatives from the Western Isles and his council that, if their anxiety about the pool rate of interest was shared by other authorities, I should be happy for the Department and COSLA to pursue the matter. The system which has operated for years was used in this case and the Western Isles received the second highest subsidy in Scotland—almost £4 million in housing support grant. That amounts to over £32 per week for each Western Isles council tenant. The national taxpayer contributes more towards the cost of Western Isles council housing than the council tenants.
Mr. John McAllion rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I wish to develop the argument. The hon. Gentleman can intervene again in a moment if he wishes.
The other major item of expenditure on housing revenue accounts is management and maintenance of the housing stock. Our estimate of eligible management and maintenance spending in 1991–92 is based on an assumed average spending level of £458 per house; that represents a 12·5 per cent. increase over the equivalent average for the current year. Hon. Members will be aware that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities considers that that is not enough. On that point, I do not find its arguments convincing. During the current year, of the 21 authorities in receipt of grant, 10 are spending less on management and maintenance than the amount assumed in the grant calculations. That suggests that our management and maintenance assumption for grant purposes is not only reasonable but realistic.
388
On the income side, we are assuming that rents in 1991–92 will in each authority be set at an average level of £23·97 per house per week. That also represents an increase of 12·5 per cent. above the assumed rent for the current year. I stress that the rent figure of £23·97 which I have quoted is not a forecast of the average council rent next year; nor is it a recommendation to authorities about their rent levels for next year. It is the average rent which, for the purpose of grant calculations, we consider authorities should reasonably receive. The actual rent levels of individual authorities may be higher or lower, depending on their decisions about income and expenditure. I shall discuss in a few moments the implications of the subsidies settlement for actual rents.
Mr. McAllion: The Minister should know that Dundee expects its average rent level to increase to £28·18 next year simply because, once again, the Government refuse to give any housing support grant whatever to the council. Why are the Government prepared to subsidise the borrowings of owner-occupiers in Dundee such as me but are not prepared to give a single penny to subsidise the borrowings made on behalf of the district council tenants by Dundee district? He will be aware that Dundee tenants are paying 67p out of every pound to the moneylenders to which the Government force Dundee district council to turn.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman why the allocations, as they stand, have been made to Dundee. I repeat that the final allocations have not been made. The provisional gross allocation announced for Dundee on the housing revenue account block amounts to £17·39 million. I am pleased to have been able to maintain Dundee's allocation at the same level as the corresponding figure for the current financial year. On a per house basis, there will be an increase of just over 5 per cent., from £498 to £524, per house. That means that the council should be in a position to maintain investment in its own housing stock at the level planned for 1990–91.
Mr. Bill Walker: With regard to the intervention of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), will my hon. Friend confirm that housing benefit paid through the councils in Scotland was in excess of £380 million? That makes a bit of a nonsense of the hon. Gentleman's claim about the Government helping only those who have private dwellings.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: More than £380 million is spent through housing benefit on local authority tenants. That does not take into account New Towns' tenants, Scottish Homes' tenants or other tenants in the private sector. That £380 million is a substantial sum of money.
Mr. John Maxton: When will the Minister realise that housing benefit is a subsidy to the person who is in desperate poverty and not to the housing authority? If everyone was well paid, there would not be any housing benefit, but I bet that there would still be mortgage tax relief.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I appreciate that the Government's policy has been to move away from generalised subsidies to targeting those subsidies much more to the individual. The levels of housing benefit have increased enormously in the past 10 years.

389
I wish to draw to the attention of the House one important aspect of the Housing Support Grant Order. Some time ago the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) complained that the costs incurred by local authorities in dealing with homelessness had to be met from the housing revenue account and were therefore financed from council rents. With the agreement of COSLA, I have made it clear to all local authorities that that practice should stop. Therefore, local authority expenditure on homelessness, such as the cost of running homeless persons' units and the provision of assistance to voluntary organisations, will now be met from the general funds of authorities. That expenditure has been taken into account in determining next year's aggregate external finance settlement so that the burden will be shared between the taxpayer and the community charge payer.
One area of homeless expenditure, however, must continue to be met from housing revenue accounts for statutory reasons—the net costs of local authority hostels. It is our intention to bring forward legislation to exclude those costs from local authority housing revenue accounts as soon as an appropriate opportunity is available. In the meantime, we have made arrangements to ensure that the net costs of all local housing authority hostels in Scotland will be met by the Government through housing support grant. Those arrangements have been given effect in the main order before the House.
I invite hon. Members to note that the housing support grant hostel portion of £1,425,314 will be distributed among the 15 authorities shown in schedule 3 to the order. If we had not changed the arrangements, only five authorities would have received a share of a total hostel portion of only £384,000. The House will not be surprised to learn that the change has been welcomed by COSLA.
Our aim in providing that additional grant assistance through the HSG and revenue support grant is to ensure that local authorities are properly resourced to deal with homelessness. It is not, of course, the final or definitive answer to the problem of homelessness, but it is one example of the way in which the Government are prepared to help local authorities in that respect.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Minister aware that Renfrew district council has been allocated £28,500 for homeless hostel accommodation? Does he realise that one can hardly buy a single-end in Paisley for that sum? How far will £28,500 go in helping the homeless in Renfrew? The Government live in cloud cuckoo land.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Each authority knows its own problems and its own stock as well as, if not considerably better than, anyone else. It is for each authority to work out its priorities within the framework of its allocation. I expect authorities to give priority to homelessness.
General fund contributions represent a subsidy from community—
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should get on, but I am willing to give way.
Mrs. Fyfe: What is the position of battered women in Scotland? The hostel accommodation provided for them meets just one tenth of actual need as estimated by refuge organisations.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We changed the law in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 so that battered wives should be considered as homeless persons and counted as such. That change was welcomed. Before Christmas we also announced an additional allocation, extra to the resources originally allocated. We are now in discussion with four cities, including the hon. Lady's, and we hope to make the detailed allocations to those cities as soon as practicable when we have all the information. No doubt the hon. Lady's concern will be one of the issues under consideration.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot resist my hon. and learned Friend.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Has my hon. Friend noticed that some local authorities, including my own, are not getting a bean out of this? People who live in modest circumstances are contributing to the constituents of Opposition Members in Dundee and elsewhere. That is what lies behind my hon. Friend's announcement tonight.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. and learned Friend makes a relevant point. When I visited his district council—
Mr. McAllion: The hon. and learned Gentleman's council is the only one on Tayside getting any Government grant. Our constituents are subsidising his.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will get an opportunity to speak in the course of the debate.
When I visited my hon. and learned Friend's district council, it was clear that it was interested in Scottish Homes' projects. Assistance is therefore available from a number of different hands.
Mr. McAllion rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot make the hon. Gentleman's speech for him.
General fund contributions represent a subsidy from community charge payers to council tenants. Such subsidies are indiscriminate as they benefit all council tenants regardless of their personal circumstances. They are unnecessary to the extent that tenants who are unable to meet the costs of their housing receive assistance in the form of housing benefit. Therefore, I make no apology for our proposal that 48 of the 56 local housing authorities will be barred from estimating for such a contribution next year. The remaining eight authorities will be allowed to budget for varying levels of contribution amounting in total to £2·2 million. The level of those contributions has been calculated as the amounts necessary to restrict the average rent increase in each of the authorities concerned to a maximum of £2·50 per house per week.

391
I estimate that the combined effect of the subsidy proposals before the House will be that the overall average rent increase for council tenants in Scotland will be about £1024 per house per week, or 5·9 per cent. I should emphasise that that forecast is based upon the assumption that authorities will increase their spending on management and maintenance by 12·5 per cent. per house above their budgeted levels for the current year. That would bring average rents to a level of £22·14 per house per week in 1991–92. I do not regard such rent levels as unreasonable or excessive—they are lower than the current average rent levels of New Towns' tenants at £23·22 and Scottish Homes' tenants at £23·81. They are certainly well below those of local authorities in England at £23·74. I should add that those local authority tenants in receipt of housing benefit are protected against rent increases.
I believe that the proposals put forward tonight constitute a fair and reasonable subsidy package. They set an acceptable balance between the interests of the council tenant, the community charge payer and the taxpayer. We have consulted authorities about the orders, and I commend them to the House.
8.9 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I have listened many times to this Minister and to previous Ministers speaking about housing in Scotland. I despair of their ever understanding that Scotland has a housing crisis, especially in the public sector, and that that crisis has existed for far too many years.
The Minister made it clear that many local authorities receive no grant whatever from central Government—either in housing support grant or through the general fund contribution. I point out to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) that, of the three local authorities in the Tayside region—Angus, Dundee and Perth and Kinross—only Perth and Kinross receives any grant; the other two receive no grant whatever. The collusion between the two Members in suggesting otherwise is wholly unfair.
Every time the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, he reads a brief that is complacent, to say the least, and paints a picture of housing in Scotland that no one—except Ministers and, presumably, the advisers who write their speeches—would recognise. Perhaps even they do not recognise it. Certainly no local authority facing the continuing deterioration of its housing stock, no housing charity and no academic researcher would recognise it. Most important, no tenant paying ever-higher rent for ever-poorer housing would see the house in which he or she lives depicted anywhere in the Minister's speech.
Everyone involved in Scottish housing has tried to show the Minister that there is a crisis. As long ago as 1986, the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities spelt it out. Using Scottish Office statistics, the convention showed that more than 356,000 houses needed modernisation, 88,000 needed rewiring, 234,000 suffered from damp or condensation and more than 153,000 needed major or structural repairs. I make no apology for repeating those figures. I do so practically every time I make a speech on housing. No Minister has yet been able to refute them, no Minister has been able to say that they are incorrect and no Minister has been able to produce alternative figures.
Whether through housing support grant, through general fund contributions or through capital allocations,
392
the Government have failed to provide local authorities with the funds that would allow them to tackle this appalling problem. The crisis has almost certainly deepened since 1986. Ever-deeper cuts have meant insufficient money being spent on basic repairs and modernisation. The orders are part of that pattern. They represent cuts in housing expenditure that can only drive rents ever higher and lead to a poorer repair service and a further deterioration in Scotland's housing stock.
Before Christmas, the Minister seemed to recognise, at least in part, the desperate plight of the growing army of homeless young people. It appears that that recognition was short-lived. There is little point in the Minister's giving money to local authorities to spend on hostels for the homeless if he then takes all that and more away by other means, thus reducing the authorities' capacity to provide permanent homes for those same homeless people. There is no point in providing hostel accommodation if fewer houses are available for the homeless once their spell in hostel accommodation is up.
Let us look at the figures showing the total resources that local authorities in Scotland will have to spend on housing this year. The general fund contribution is to be reduced from £3 million to £2 million. If that is all that the Minister proposes to allow, there is little point in keeping the general fund contribution; one might almost say that it should be abolished. Only eight Scottish local authorities can use it. Housing support grant is to be reduced from £58 million to £55 million. Capital consents—the money that local authorities can borrow to spend on new buildings and major developments—have been reduced from £459 million to £415 million. Local authorities expected the total to rise, at least in line with inflation—from £520 million to £572 million—rather than being reduced to £472 million. That represents a cut in real terms of £100 million in the money that will be spent by local authorities on housing in Scotland during the coming year—hardly the increase that the Minister tried to pretend would take place.
Ten years ago, housing support grant was £228 million —in cash terms, not real terms. The general fund contribution—or rate fund contribution, as it then was —provided a further £100 million. Next year, the two together will provide only £57 million.
COSLA estimates that, since 1979, more than £1·5 billion of direct Government support has been cut from housing in Scotland. The House should remember that those are cash figures. In real terms, the facts are even more catastrophic. In 1979, 47 per cent. of local authority housing costs came from rents, 39 per cent. from housing support grant and 14 per cent. from then rate fund contribution. This year, 93 per cent. will come from rents, 7 per cent. from housing support grant and less than 1 per cent. from the general fund contribution.
All that has placed an intolerable burden on tenants. Rents in Scotland have risen from an average of £4·92 per week in 1979 to an average of £20·88 this financial year. COSLA expects that average to rise by more than £3 a week next year—whatever the Minister may claim to the contrary. A comparison of Scottish rents with equivalent rents in the north of England and the midlands will show the Minister that many Scottish authorities' rents are now far higher than those in England. He can arrive at the overall English average only by including the London boroughs and authorities in the south-east of England.
Mr. Bill Walker: What happens to those in receipt of housing benefit when local authorities push rents up? Is that increase paid for from the public purse?
Mr. Maxton: If local authorities—especially Labour local authorities—had some way of increasing rents only for those on housing benefit and of keeping rents down for the others, the hon. Gentleman might just have an argument. But every time local authorities increase their rents, they have to increase rents for all tenants, including those who fall just outside the housing benefit range, who are in the poverty trap. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that.
Rents in Scotland have risen on average by 350 per cent. since 1979. That is well above the rate of inflation. At the same time, the Government have continued to subsidise home owners through mortgage tax relief. We are not opposed to such relief for standard rate taxpayers, but we believe that there should be equality of treatment. Last year, mortgage payers in Scotland—including me, I admit—received £470 million in subsidies compared with the £58 million that the local authorities received for their tenants. Hon. Members may not realise that that £470 million is only about 6·5 per cent. of the United Kingdom total, which now runs at £6·5 billion. The Labour party seeks equivalence of treatment in those matters.
I accept that the variation order does not involve large sums of money. However, it cuts housing grant by £1·6 million at a time when more, rather than less, needs to be spent on Scottish housing. The Minister explained that this year's housing support grant was based on an interest rate of 10·2 per cent. The Minister has now concluded that a projected interest rate of 10·1 per cent. is more appropriate. Given the Gulf war and the present economic crisis, I do not understand how he reached that conclusion. I see no evidence to suggest that interest rates will fall. The Minister was asked by COSLA to delay his decision until he saw the economic position, but he refused. More importantly, he refused to give a guarantee that if his estimate was wrong, he would come back to the House with another variation order to increase the grant. I am happy to give way if he would like to give that guarantee now.
On the main Housing Support Grant Order, I have already shown that there is a further reduction in grant. The Minister described his decision and the increases as realistic. The Government will give an allowance of £458 per house for management and maintenance. This year local authorities are spending £485 per house and they expect to spend £543 per house next year just to maintain the present level of service. There is a significant difference. The housing support grant settlement should have been £62 million more simply to allow local authorities to stand still on housing expenditure.
Some authorities may be in trouble, too, over the element in their grant for loan charges. The Minister mentioned the Western Isles. That council believes that its grant, based on the average of Scottish interest rates, is far too low. Most of its loans have been taken out since 1975 at high interest rates; therefore it cannot compensate with the lower interest rates from before 1975. As a result, Western Isles council is faced with having to increase its rents by a minimum of £6·50 a week. It can do that only if it cuts maintenance costs by half.
394
While capital allocations are not officially part of the debate, we cannot ignore them when considering the money to be spent on public housing in Scotland. Here, too, cuts are taking place. Net consents—the money which local authorities can borrow without consideration of house sales—have risen by £24 million in the capital allocations given by the Minister, but expected receipts from the sale of houses have fallen by £68 million. As a result, local authorities will have £44 million less to spend this year on new build, redevelopment and help to the private sector. Yet again the Government refuse to recognise that there is a crisis in Scottish housing. They do not care that thousands of their fellow Scots live in substandard housing, with their health and the health of their children affected by dampness and cold. People on low wages, just outside benefit level, are struggling to find ever-increasing rents and are forced to trim their spending on food and heating. That is intolerable in a civilised society. The callous disregard of the Government and their Back-Bench Members for the crisis is disgraceful.
However, let me be marginally generous to the Minister: I do not think that he understands or knows what is happening. With his income, he does not appreciate the housing problems of other people. I should like to finish with an apocryphal story, perhaps, about the Minister, which illustrates well his total lack of understanding of Scottish housing and which also shows that he has no right to be a housing Minister.
On one occasion, when travelling in his official car in Scotland with a junior civil servant, to make polite conversation he asked the young man where he lived. The young man said that he had a flat in such-and-such a street in Edinburgh. The Minister replied, "That is very interesting: I have got a flat just around the corner. Tell me, where do you live at the weekends?" I think that that sums up the Minister's lack of understanding about housing.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting a piece of gossip produced in the Glasgow Herald. The last story was that this was a conversation overheard at an airport. There is only one senior official in the housing department in that category, and I know very well who it is.
Mr. Maxton: I will not reveal my source, but I assure the House that it was not idle gossip overheard anywhere. It came from a fairly reliable source. The story sums up the Government's attitude to housing and the Minister's understanding of housing. I ask my hon. Friends to vote against the orders to show our contempt for the Government's housing policy.
8.24 pm
Sir Hector Monro: While I would not use the adjectives that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) used in opening his speech, it is no use trying to hide the fact that there are many housing problems in Scotland. Not that they are particularly new —in all the housing debates stretching back to 1964, one recalls criticism of the Government in power, whether Labour or Conservative, for not putting sufficient resources into housing. There is no doubt that housing is sometimes short in quantity, sometimes short in quality,

395
and sometimes both. We must try to move faster towards the production of houses of the standard that we require in the 1990s than we have over the last 20 years or so.
Some authorities have exceptionally good housing records; they have modernised existing houses and have built good new houses. It is a major worry that so many poor houses were built in the 1950s when everyone was cutting costs to the bone. The result was condensation, dampness and virtual reconstruction in the 1980s and inevitably in the 1990s. We have a long way to go before we can say that in Scotland we are even moderately satisfied with the overall quality and quantity of houses.
There have been 220,000 houses built since 1979. Successful council house sales have brought capital receipts to local authorities. One is concerned about the fact that more than 20,000 houses are empty in Scotland at any one time. That makes one raise more than one eyebrow about the quality of housing management in some areas.
Mr. Ron Brown: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that Scottish Homes, a Government quango, has refused repeatedly to repair steel-framed houses in my constituency. Those houses may be regarded as substandard by Scottish Homes management, but it is utterly disgraceful that it is increasing rents by 14 per cent. in April when it is not doing the basic work required on those houses. What does the hon. Gentleman say about that?
Sir Hector Monro: I am coming to Scottish Homes; it was a great initiative of the Government and of my hon. Friend the Minister. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), I look forward to action by Scottish Homes in my constituency. I have raised the issue of the condition of some of the houses managed by Scottish Homes and so far I have had a negative response to requests for early improvement. I should like Scottish Homes to be much more active. I do not know the position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I hope that when the Minister replies he will say more about Scottish Homes. I should like to know what capital investment Scottish Homes is likely to make in my constituency in the coming financial year.
My hon. Friend the Minister was good enough lo visit housing in Nithsdale in my constituency last autumn. I think that he was impressed by some of the new developments and by the housing manager and his staff. There is certainly disappointment there and in Annandale and Eskdale because those areas have not received a larger share of the cake that the Minister has been able to distribute under this order, under the housing revenue account, under the non-housing revenue account to a lesser extent, and, equally importantly, under capital consent. District councils are anxious to get on with improving their housing and with building new ones. To do that they must have more capital consent and more resources.
Last summer we held a useful debate on housing in the Scottish Grand Committee. I told the Minister then of my grave concern about homelessness. I have yet to see any dramatic improvement in this critical problem. I asked the Minister then and subsequently what steps were being taken to get to the bottom of the problem, which is not solely a matter of insufficient housing. People come to Dumfries from Ireland, the Western Isles, the Highlands
396
and central Scotland and in no time at all reach a high position on the housing list because they are homeless. That is most unfair to those who have lived in the area for many years and are looking forward to having a house when they get married—yet these outsiders jump to the top of the list.
I hope that great organisations such as Shelter, Age Concern and the Church of Scotland will make every effort to find out more about the root causes of this national problem, which is not merely to do with a lack of houses. Perhaps we could persuade people to stay a little longer with their parents or to move to areas with available housing. That might alleviate the problem to some extent.
I urge the Minister to reconsider how district councils should allocate priority between those who claim frequently rightly—to be homeless. The problem is getting worse, certainly for single-parent families. I often meet teenage girls with young children who, unfortunately, have been asked by their parents to leave home, even though they have recently had babies. We must try to find out why so many of these young girls are starting families when the fathers are not interested in sharing a home with them or even in helping to pay towards the maintenance of their children. Many of our problems of housing and homelessness stem not just from insufficient housing but from major issues to do with morality.
The Minister has worked hard at housing, especially with Scottish Homes. I should like to know more about what Scottish Homes proposes to do and about where it proposes to do it in the coming year. The organisation has been given a good lead by many of the housing associations. I offer warm praise to Loreburn in my area which has successfully built a large number of houses, many of them for people with special needs, and which plans many more developments. The Minister should encourage housing associations as much as he can. I should like Scottish Homes to share their enthusiasm; and perhaps it will—after all, it has not existed for long. I should like it to take more initiatives and to embark on more expenditure to modernise present stock and to help provide new homes.
Rather than going through the statistics in the orders, I should like to leave with the Minister the general impression that we have a great deal still to do before the quantity and quality of housing in Scotland can be called adequate. I appreciate that this year is financially difficult, given the Gulf crisis and rising costs, but when resources become available I hope that the Minister will agree that greater priority should be given to housing.
8.35 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I do not agree with what the Minister said about housing in Scotland. Of course, every local authority can point to model housing estates, and Glasgow is no exception. But hon. Friends who have been involved in recent by-elections will agree that every community has its bad housing estates too—for instance, in Govan, in Tewanhill and in other areas that have come to be known as wine alley. There is one in Paisley, too. Some of this housing is in deplorable condition not through any fault of the local authority but because of a history of serious social problems.
The Minister has not faced up to this crisis; he certainly has not tried to help local authorities. He knows full well

397
that the provisions that we are debating are a follow-up to the housing support capital allocation announced in December, as a result of which every local authority in Scotland felt sadly let down by the Government.
My local authority in Glasgow had planned an investment programme of £120 million. Because of the Government's decision, that has fallen to £87 million—a cut in real terms of 20 per cent. That will affect the current budget but, by their very nature, delays in this year's housing programmes—many have already been delayed —have consequences for 1993 too, as the Minister knows.
Every time housing is debated in this Chamber the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) mention peripheral estates in Glasgow, often blaming the city of Glagow for them—
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
Mr. Martin: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that my colleagues want to speak and that it would be unfair of me to give way to him in such a brief debate. I know that I mentioned him, but he will have a chance to respond later.
Conservative Members blame the local authorities for peripheral estates in which houses sit empty. The Minister and the Secretary of State have often said that we cannot build more houses in these cities, because plenty of them are lying empty. The local authorities have embarked on joint ventures with Scottish Homes and with the private sector, and sometimes they would prefer to do what the Government want them to do: to rehabilitate houses and put them up for sale. However, because of recent Government decisions, these houses will continue to lie empty, and for so long that they will not be able to be rehabilitated. The vandals will move in, the weather will take its toll and mass demolition will follow. Then the Tory press and the Government will blame the Labour-controlled authority.
Many of my constituents live in fear of break-ins by people with drug problems. My house was recently broken into and I understand that the perpetrator was a drug addict. That is happening not just to me but to people who are the poorest of the poor. They are living in fear.
Mr. David Lambie: You are not poor.
Mr. Martin: My hon. Friend says that I am not poor. I am not as rich as he is, but I am certainly not poor, although I have not got to the Council of Europe yet.
Council tenants live in fear of break-ins and have made representations about it to the local authority. It was planned that many projects in my area would be brought forward to give protection to tenants, particularly the elderly and the disabled, but once again, because of the Government's decision, these elderly and disabled tenants will not get the alarm systems that would make them feel secure, particularly on winter nights. The Minister must know that these are the fears expressed by people when they come to constituency surgeries. They say that they want to move out. I tell them that theirs is a good house, but they persist in wanting to move because there have been too many break-ins in the area.
398
The Minister must help local authorities to ensure that people stay in the housing estates and thus relax the pressure on the houses that are in high demand. That applies particularly to multi-storey flats. I must have more of them than any hon. Member, and I know that those which have a concierge service to stop outsiders coming and going have now become desirable places in which to live. The children have been moved out of them and they are for middle-aged couples and sometimes single people, who are keen to live there provided that they have protection at the front door and also provided that vandalism does not take place in the lifts, causing them to have to walk up 20 flights, or 30 in the case of the Redwood flats. It would be simple and cheap to get this concierge service into every multi-storey block in Glasgow, but we need the help of the Minister to do it.
Housing officials have now identified Coll Place in my constituency, a full multi-storey block which is now empty, as somewhere that can be turned into furnished accommodation for students and young people who are not interested in long-term lets. But I now have a full multi-storey block which is empty; there is not a soul in the entire building. It is depressing for the people in that community. The officials tell me that, because the Secretary of State will not help, there will be no money available. Nor am I making a case for my own constituency alone. They have identified other places—Castlemilk, Pollok, Easterhouse and other parts of the city —where projects will have to be abandoned.
One would have thought, however, that the Conservative party's pet organisation would be Scottish Homes. One would have thought that, with a community-based housing association movement and all the other projects in which Scottish Homes is involved, it was something the Tories would want to give money to, but I am told that in real terms the non-housing revenue allocation expenditure will drop by 17 per cent. What that means is that where young couples are not being allocated houses, because the areas are popular and the houses have been bought by the sitting tenants, they are turning to Scottish Homes. But Scottish Homes cannot help them unless they get the finance. The Minister knows that.
The Conservatives have always claimed to be the champions of the private sector, but in Glasgow there are 400 cases in a backlog of statutory repairs required in the private sector. The 400 cases are mainly of elderly people living in old tenements in the Duke street area of my constituency down in Denistoun, where the roofs leak and the walls are damp and no help is forthcoming from the local authority. What annoys me is that when grants for repairs are refused it will not be the Government or St. Andrew's House who will get the blame but George Square and district councils.
In my constituency we have "four in a block" houses. They are popular. They have side doors and a garden and are very good for families. I had one and was happy for the children to be brought up in such a house. It only needs one tenant to buy one of those four in a block when the other three are still owned by the local authority and problems arise. The local authority may carry out improvements to the block but, because of a decision by the Government, it cannot give any grant to the tenant who has bought his house, even though he has been encouraged by the Government through leaflets and press

399
propaganda to buy his house and even though he has been told that if the house is old he will be given a grant to do it up.
I am not opposed to tenants buying their houses. When I was a councillor in Glasgow I supported the selling of selected houses to try to encourage young couples to stay in communities consisting mainly of elderly people. But I put it to the Minister that if he is really proud of what local authorities are doing—and I know that he is because he loves coming to open new projects; he has been up to Springburn and he has had a great welcome, and there are plaques on rehabilitated houses to show that he has opened them—and if he wants that positive action to continue, he must help the local authorities rather than hinder them.
8.47 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has demonstrated his deep knowledge of housing in his constituency. Through his speech ran the thread of what he wants, which is some innovative and progressive thinking. That is really what he was saying. We have had problems in public sector housing in Scotland for a long time. Anyone who thinks differently is not facing up to the real issues. Many of our citizens have been forced by circumstances to live in totally unsuitable houses and have had to put up with condensation and damp. I vividly remember our inspection of houses during visits to Glasgow and elsewhere, but particularly to some of the housing schemes in Glasgow. The desperate problems that must be tackled were quite obvious.
There is also the problem of "homelessness". It is rather an umbrella word because it covers everyone who has no permanent home. Hon. Members will know that for a long time I have been interested in the problems of people who find themselves in this position. I cannot describe my investigations as comprehensive or sufficiently deep to provide complete answers, but at least I care enough about these things to become involved. That is true of everything that I do. Opposition Members may doubt some of the proffered solutions, but I care as deeply as they do about problems on housing estates. An Opposition Member who is present in the House grew up on the same housing estate as I did.
Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman appears to be concerned about this matter. I assume that he will join us in the Lobby to show his contempt for Government cuts.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should be patient. I shall deal with his speech in a moment. His background and circumstances are quite different from mine and we need no lectures from him or anyone else. I hope that we are all looking for ways to improve the lot of people whose circumstances are totally unsatisfactory, although we may disagree on how we can achieve that end.
I shall now deal with the humbug in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). He accused my hon. Friend the Minister of not caring and not understanding. That is a travesty of the truth because every hon. Member knows that the Minister is one of the most caring and interested Members in the House. The hon. Member for Cathcart will know that many people leave Edinburgh at weekends to come to ski in my constituency. That means that many people living in flats
400
in Edinburgh are not there at the weekends and it is nonsense to pretend otherwise. In this modern and mobile world it is wise to concentrate on those who have problems and say "Good luck" to those who have not.
We are speaking about taxpayers' support for housing. In Scotland more than 20,000 council houses are empty. Hon. Members have spoken about some of the problems and I have been interested in some of the solutions. I have many times criticised Dundee district council, but I hope that that council will agree that I also compliment it when that is required. Some of the innovative housing projects and new schemes near the centre of Dundee are a credit to that council. They are also a credit to co-operation among the private sector, the housing associations and the district council. We must continue to move down such innovative routes.
The hon. Member for Cathcart had some nasty things to say about mortgage tax relief. Presumably he was speaking for the Opposition and would suggest that such tax relief should be abolished. Mortgage tax relief allows people to keep their own money. We are discussing how taxpayers can assist people who are in need, and mortgage tax relief is one aspect of the housing issue. The Government's policy of selling houses and giving people the opportunity to buy at substantial discounts is another way to ease Scotland's housing problems. One of the most notable features of housing estates on which houses have been sold is the improvement in the environment. On such estates vandalism generally decreases because people do not vandalise their own property.
Opposition Members constantly overlook the fact that since 1979 Government policy has sought to direct taxpayers' funds to people in need and not to offer a blanket approach to problems. I approve of that because if public funds are not targeted they will not provide good value. Housing benefit has been deliberately targeted at those whose income, wherever it comes from, is below a certain standard. That benefit, which is taxpayers' money, has risen to more than £380 million in the past year and is for council house tenants only. [Interruption.] Allowing someone to keep his own money is not the same as directing taxpayers' money to those in need. A better understanding of the use of finance would take us nearer to implementing some of the innovative solutions with which I agree.
Housing benefit is paid to the people in greatest need, and the opportunity to buy at discounted prices goes to another group. Now we are moving into the area highlighted by the hon. Member for Cathcart which is just outside the area of housing benefit. There will always be people who are just outside that area and the Government rent-to-buy scheme is deliberately designed for such people. They can buy their property at a discounted price and enter into an arrangement whereby if at some future date the property is sold they will share the increase in its value.
All those schemes deal with social problems, such as the problem of vandalism on many large estates. We must deal with that and part of the solution—not the only solution —is to give more people a stake in their property, thus reducing vandalism and increasing in the community the feeling that the property is theirs and that they can take steps to protect it. I am astonished that some Opposition Members cannot see the benefit of that. The rent-to-buy scheme, which is still in its early stages but doing well, deals with that.

401
I shall now deal with those who are in need of houses for whatever reason. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I should like to call all hon. Members who wish to speak. To that end, it would be helpful if hon Members did not engage in sedentary barracking but saved their breath until they were called.
Mr. Walker: Opposition Members think that they are being flippant and clever. If they are concerned about those in real need they should separate them from people who are not in real need, of which there are some.
Let us look at the casual homeless problem. In my constituency we understand that because we have much of it. Berry pickers come to Blairgowrie and the surrounding area. Many of them have homes in other parts of Scotland, but when they find that they like my constituency they decide to stay. I have dozens of examples from my surgery. That problem must be addressed by Perth and Kinross district council because those people register themselves as homeless and are put up in accommodation such as caravans. We must not confuse those people with people who are genuinely homeless as a result of factors over which they have no control. Such people are placed on housing lists for many reasons. Perhaps they got married and went to live with their parents. Children invariably come along and we all know what happens in such situations. The problem is complex and not as simple as some people suggest.
I have studied the problems of people who sleep in cardboard boxes and I discovered that more of those people than I had expected said categorically that they would not accept hostel accommodation even if it were offered to them. I am delighted to say that the Salvation Army in Scotland has confirmed that more than once. Those people had chosen this particular way of life and it turned out that some had a drink problem. What I did not know, and was unable to ascertain, was whether the drink problem was the result of the way they lived or whether the way they lived was the result of their drink problem. Whatever the answer, there was some factor in their lives that was creating a difficulty.
There are some of these individuals not far from this very place just along the Embankment, if hon. Members want to talk to them. I have spoken to some of those people and they have told me that they would not go to hostel accommodation because it would interfere with their way of life. The Salvation Army has confirmed that in Scottish main cities a substantial number of such people will not accept its empty hostel beds. That is another problem to which I draw attention.
Nobody to whom I have listened who has made any attempt to study the matter thinks that if the Government give the local authorities more money in whatever way that will resolve the problem. In my view, that is a matter of hope over experience. I believe that the Government quite properly should target public funds, and I think that we could target them much more.
I believe that the voluntary bodies must be involved. The housing associations, Scottish Homes and so on must all be part of the effort to find an answer. I am very happy to say that in my constituency a number of bodies are working to try to find answers. I hope that in due course
402
they will get the sort of assistance which they all say public funds should give. But I believe that such funds should be given only to clearly thought-out, clearly presented projects on a one-off basis. One of the great mistakes in housing in past years is that we have not looked at the revenue implications of some of the ideas. This includes the building of some high-rise flats and so on.
I have spoken for a little longer than I had intended, but hon. Members opposite provoked me to do so and I thought that I should respond.
9.2 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I propose to be brief, and I shall speak mainly about the effects of these orders on several local authorities in the highlands area. It is worth underscoring at the outset the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in looking at the overall expenditure pattern. These orders represent in real terms, allowing for inflation, a reduction of £100 million for Scottish public housing. That is the basic position. Broken down on an individual constituency basis, although local authorities have their variations and some come off not quite so badly and others come off slightly worse, in real terms it results in a significant loss across the country as a whole.
My specific comments deal in the main with the effect of these orders on the Ross and Cromarty district council, to a lesser extent on the Inverness district council, which straddles both my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), and on Lochaber district council as well. Within the mainland highland region—though I am sure that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) will deal later with the specific problems faced by the island authorities—in that order of priority those are the areas most adversely affected.
Let me deal with the variation order first. The difference in Ross and Cromarty involves a reduction of about £60,000. In the Inverness district, the equivalent reduction is just under £50,000, and Lochaber will suffer a reduction some way below that figure.
As the Under-Secretary of State said in opening the debate, the main reason for this is the downward revision of the so-called pool interest rate on which the original grant calculations were based. The pool interest rate is reduced from 10·2 per cent. in the main order to 10·1 per cent. in the variation order. It is not realistic to suppose that Ross and Cromarty can secure borrowing at that rate of interest in the current economic climate. It may be possible that for Glasgow, where the sums involved are huge, special arrangements can be made, but for the small-scale rural authority, in the current economic climate and with present interest rates, there is no viable alternative.
During the current year, Ross and Cromarty's interest payments have increased by £345,000 above the amount allowed for in the housing support grant calculations. In addition, the amount of debt redeemed during the year is £177,000 higher than that allowed for in the calculations. As a consequence of the changes, the council is paying interest charges of £522,000 above the level assumed in the housing support grant calculations. For a council with a budget the size of that of Ross and Cromarty, a £522,000 downside in the housing budget is very serious.

403
The council has been endeavouring to make administrative savings and, of course, it has cut its expenditure on repairs and maintenance. Nevertheless, at this point—and the council gave me the figures today—it faces a deficit on the housing account of £240,000. With only three months of the financial year remaining, the only option available to the council is to fund certain repairs from capital expenditure. That will reduce the amount available for new build and for what was previously regarded as essential and often long overdue refurbishments and improvements. I hope that the Minister will comment, if not specifically on Ross and Cromarty, at least on the general point that I am making.
The Minister will know from correspondence between his office and myself that I can cite many examples, especially in Easter Ross, Alness and Tain, of much public dissatisfaction and frustration about the delays and cancellations of necessary improvements. There are also problems for the west coast, but I shall deal with those later.
The main order would result in a cash reduction in housing support grant of £133,000, again based on a further reduction in the pool interest rate, this time down to 10 per cent. The council believes that it will not be possible to fund replacement borrowings at that rate, given the same problems of the general economic climate. What does that mean for the rents being levied within the Ross and Cromarty district? I have read the excellent brief prepared by COSLA which has been circulated to hon. Members. It shows that over the next year the average rent rise will be £3.
Within the Ross and Cromarty district, the combined effect of the main order and the variation order will be that, at current expenditure levels, the increase in rent will be about £240 a year, which is £4·68 a week. That is the increase required to balance the housing account. It is significantly above even what COSLA estimates will be the average figure for Scotland. It is a 22 per cent. increase. That cannot be right in an area that already suffers higher general overheads for daily living, transport and travelling costs, and so on.
It must be emphasised that the only alternative available to the council that would avoid increasing rents by more than double the rate of inflation would be, as in the previous category, to transfer certain costs from revenue to capital. There are two main problems with that. First, it increases the cost of the work, and, secondly, it further reduces the ability to finance new build and improvement projects. It should be noted that the council's net consent for capital expenditure on housing has already been reduced by almost £600,000 between the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92.
In essence, there are three points that I wish to stress to the Minister. In terms of the local authorities—Ross and Cromarty in particular, but the same applies to the others—the calculations on which the housing support grant decisions are based have given totally unrealistic estimates of the rates at which councils in these categories are able to borrow, given current interest rates and economic forecasts. Secondly, for Ross and Cromarty district, the level of debt redemption in both the current year and next year has been seriously underestimated. Thirdly, as a result of a substantial gap between the levels of capital charges supported by the housing support grant and those incurred by the council itself there will inevitably be an excessive burden on council house rents while at the same
404
time reducing capital allocations and therefore creating substantial delays in carrying out much needed house improvements. That is hardly a happy or successful situation for a local authority.
Given that dampness is such a problem in public authority housing in Scotland—people have long enough memories to recall the Scottish Select Committee and they will remember the report that was done in that context—and given the difficulties of geography and climate in the north of Scotland, the position is even worse there. Also, there are the extra fuel and transport costs in new build, not least for the west coast of Scotland, and the lack of private land for public housing in many parts of the highlands. Upward pressure is being exerted on house prices as a result of people decanting from central Scotland and the south-east of England and inflating property prices in the highlands. Thus, we have rising rents and lowering standards in the public sector, further pressures on local authority budgets and personal household budgets and the likely setting back or cancellation of much needed refurbishment and repair. This results in more dampness, more condensation, more frustration and more human unhappiness. That is a miserable state of affairs.
Far from coming forward with a variation order tonight to claw back still more money from the local authorities in Scotland, the Minister should be reversing spending priorities, not just for the highlands but for many other parts of the country as well.
9.12 pm
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I shall be brief and I do not wish to be controversial because I want my point to be appreciated by both sides of the House, by all parties and all of us who live in Scotland.
Tonight we are discussing two matters, essentially: the civilisation and quality of life which a house gives to a family or the person who lives in it, wherever in Scotland it may be, and the money that local authorities spend on making that provision. One of the scandals, the vandalisms, of our lifetime has been the destruction of the extraordinarily cheap but solid and wonderful houses in the cities of Dundee and Glasgow. These houses could and should have been modernised as those that remain have been so that they are infinitely better homes than the "new build"—I use that appalling phrase in appalling English, far less Scottish, which was used by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). I assume that he means new houses. It always has been and always will be infinitely more expensive to knock down houses that are well built and replace them with rubbish. It is one of the social scandals of our generation that in Glasgow vast schemes have been built without a pillar box or a shop. They are vast places with more people than the city of Perth. I am not criticising Glasgow, rather trying to draw attention to a problem. Money will always be limited and there will always be a complaint that not enough has been provided.
I am concerned that the money that is available should be well spent in order to achieve a single objective— to improve the environment, the housing and the dwellings, whether in Perth, Kirkcaldy, Glasgow, Dundee, Ross and Cromarty or wherever. That is the problem which hon. Members on both sides of the House should be addressing,

405
rather than making party political points about whether it was a red council, blue council, pink council, tartan council or any other council that got it wrong.
We are not talking about damp in houses; we are essentially talking about what the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye called new build—whatever that is. We are talking about houses that are badly and expensively built and on which local authorities, whichever ones, spent far more money than would have been necessary if they had done up the houses that were replaced.
Mr. Kennedy: I shall not engage the hon. and learned Gentleman in a discussion about vocabulary; I rather agree with him. But will he tell me, in his analysis which is broadly correct, where between Achiltibuie and Glenelg he would renovate all the houses and so do away with new build?
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I could, but it would not be useful to do so. If the hon. Gentleman was interested, I am one of the few Members of the House who could do that, but I will not. I could give him some good examples.
Mr. Kennedy: Give me one.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: For example, Achiltibuie—the hon. Gentleman pronounced that in the Scottish way, not in the English way in which he used the words new build—is one of the most sensitive villages in Scotland, and new build, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, has taken place along the shore as if Achiltibuie had none of the glorious surroundings that it has. That is a disgrace. I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what I would have done with Achiltibuie, and he knows it. If he represents Achiltibuie, he should be proud enough of it not to want to see it ruined in that way. Hon. Members should not imagine that I do not know about Achiltibuie. I could go right along the coast if the hon. Gentleman wanted me to from west to east, east to west and north to south. I shall not be caught out by that sort of stupid question from somebody who uses language that is incomprehensible to most hon. Members.
I am making a serious point. It is essential that we should not repeat the scandal that resulted in 50,000 or 30,000 people being dumped in what was then called new build, ripped out of the heart of Glasgow, Dundee or wherever else and dumped on the edge, adding travel costs to their expenses and putting them not into better houses but into infinitely worse houses.
That has been one of the scandals of our generation and no hon. Member on either side of the House should be talking about how much money we threw at the problem. We wasted hundreds of thousands of millions of pounds. We created social and criminal problems and a disgraceful environment for our people. Take, for instance, the street in Glasgow that runs from the High Court, where people are tried, to the Tron, where they drink. People were thrown out of there and settled in the city's environs. They were put into poor environments where they had no relationships. Now places like that street have been restored, and I am glad to say that people have come back. That, I trust, is the hope of hon. Members in all parties. However, it will be achieved only if local authorities are responsible, sensitive and careful.
9.20 pm
Mr. David Marshall: Like all other hon. Members, I am once again indebted to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It always sends us excellent briefs on orders such as these. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) highlighted what I think is the main point in this brief and it is worth repeating. I refer to the fact that, in general terms, these order involve a reduction of £48 million in total resources. In real terms—when inflation is taken into account—the reduction amounts to £100 million. In view of the problems that council tenants face, that is an absolute scandal.
I was fortunate to be able to participate in the corresponding debate last year. On that occasion I drew attention to the awful Catch-22 situation affecting the 998 Winget-type houses in Provan and Shettleston in the east end of Glasgow. Suffice it to say that a year later not a single thing has been done to help any of the poor people living in these substandard houses. These orders will not improve the situation one wee bit; in fact, they will make it worse. Help for these tenants is further away than it was even a year ago.
I should like to illustrate the increasing misery that continued and repeated reductions in housing support grant cause to my constituents, living, as they do, in an area with one of the highest levels of unemployment in Scotland—in fact, the sixth highest, with 4,421 people out of work on 13 December. In addition, the constituency has one of the highest numbers of old-age pensioners in Scotland and I shall draw the plight of some of those pensioners to the attention of the House.
The Pensioners Action Group East has sent me a list of problems that a very tiny survey brought to light. Mrs. Sadie Hart, herself a pensioner and secretary of PAGE—and a person who was awarded the Lord Provost's award for her work in the community a few years ago—is rightly very concerned that many of her members may not survive this winter unless something is done to improve the housing conditions in which they are forced to live. In her letter to me Mrs. Hart states that the possibility of deaths caused by hypothermia is her greatest fear.
I should like to quote some figures contained in the report of the PAGE survey. Fifty-two people were involved—42 females and 11 males. The average age was 73, the youngest person being 60, and the oldest 93. The shortest tenancy involved was six weeks and the longest 26 years. Of the 53 people, 49 stated that they had health problems. These included arthritis, diabetes, heart conditions, thrombosis, high blood pressure, eye problems, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, bladder conditions, leukaemia, angina, asthma, fluid retention, rheumatism, osteoporosis, ulcers, bone disease, kidney complaints, strokes, spondylitis, thyroid complaints and war wounds. It is sad that in this day and age people suffering from war wounds are living in substandard houses.
Forty-four of the people surveyed stated that their houses were very cold; 46 said that the windows were very draughty; 36 use the central heating system, and 12 do not because it is too expensive. Presumably those who do not use central heating simply cannot afford it. The average cost of the heating bills over a two-month period was £97·90. The cheapest bill was £24 and the dearest was £180.

407
Most of the complaints were that the houses were very cold, the windows were draughty and the under-floor heating too expensive. The sad truth is that the council does not have the resources to do anything to help those tenants, most of whom are elderly ladies who live alone. We, and in particular the Government who are in charge, should he thoroughly ashamed about that.
The survey was carried out in three streets in the Sandyhills area which is generally regarded as one of the best areas in my constituency. If the survey shows the position of old people living in one of the best areas, God knows what it is like for people living in the worst houses in the worst areas. The Government do not give a damn about that. I am sorry to have to say that, but until the Minister does something, his words mean nothing.
The third east end community conference was held in October and the Scottish Office was invited to send a representative to it, but none turned up. The conference covers the former GEAR area, with which the Minister is familiar. It was horrified to be presented with the east end housing plan drawn up by the district council. It is the first thoroughly researched document about the condition of all the houses in the east end of Glasgow. If the Minister has not seen a copy of that report, I will gladly send him one. The report is a couple of inches thick.
The synopsis on investment states:
"The needs of each estate in the Council sector are analysed, calculating that £230·7 million is required to bring all houses up to modern standards including heating, insulation, security and environmental improvements."
That is not too much to ask for. The report continues:
"In a 10 year programme, a shortfall of £15 million every year requires the Council to decide on where it will concentrate its own resources, and where it will have to look to others for assistance."
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart was absolutely right. There is a crisis in Scottish housing which the Government are deliberately ignoring and for which they will rightly pay the penalty at the next general election.
9.26 pm
Mr. William McKelvey: I must compliment Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council because I telephoned the council this evening requesting a brief and it sent me a swatch of papers. I will not read them to the House, but I have perused them and they show clearly that the council's current financial position means that, unless additional resources are made available to it, there will be a shortfall of more than £2·5 million in its capital programme for 1991–92. The programme includes figures that have been updated to current costs.
That shortfall in resources will require the district council to reconsider investment in its housing stock which will entail extremely difficult choices and decisions in relation to several essential projects. Having examined the details, it is clear that all those projects are desirable and essential to improve the housing stock. Some of them will have to be delayed and, tragically, some might have to be obliterated from the programme for many years to come.
Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council is very concerned, as I am, that no specific allocation has been made to tackle the problem of homelessness in the area. Like all hon. Members, I understand that cities have particular problems with homelessness because homeless people are attracted to cities. But that does not mean that areas like Kilmarnock do not have a homeless problem.
408
Therefore, pro rata, such areas should have been considered seriously and finance should have been made available so that those areas can begin to tackle what is becoming a growing problem. Throughout Scotland small towns and villages need financial assistance to cope with homelessness. The Minister cannot avoid his responsibility to examine that matter.
The council's community alarm system is an important apparatus for many elderly and infirm people in Kilmarnock. It enables elderly people to have a direct connection with someone operating a central computer. That person is able to provide immediate assistance when those elderly people are in distress or trouble. The system cannot be counted in terms of money. The council should be able to bring many more elderly people into the scheme and provide them with the security that they deserve. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of that point and reconsider the allocation of funds to Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council. Only an extra £60,000 was budgeted for the extension of that scheme this year. This should have been the year of care in the community, but the Government have put back that programme, which means so much to many elderly and infirm people.
The Minister came to Kilmarnock in 1989 and he was extremely well received. Much work was done on his behalf. When it was known that a Scottish Minister was coming to Kilmarnock, it was rather like the film the "Quiet Man". People said, "We will line up and give him stick when he gets off the train at Kilmarnock." I had to explain that it would be unlikely that he would be catching a train, as trains to Kilmarnock were few and far between. However, I convinced them that they should not only queue to see the Minister but should cheer him because we wanted the Minister to see the problems of Kilmarnock. We hoped that that would have an effect on him and that something would be done. We were very glad for the housing improvements that he helped to bring about in Kilmarnock. However, that does not negate his responsibility to continue that improvement and to help to alleviate the difficult housing problems in Kilmarnock.
The Minister must have seen, as I did when I first went to Kilmarnock 12 years ago, that the housing stock there is much better than that in many other areas. For instance, we do not have the problems associated with multi-storey blocks. By and large, the housing stock was very good. Much of it was ageing, but it was very good. A marvellous programme of refurbishment and rehabilitation has been undertaken. It must be seen to be believed.
The council was bitterly disappointed with the lack of progress made with the Minister's officials after more than one visit. The documentation I have, including copies of letters to the Department, points out the problems. They are no exaggeration. It is not acceptable that the grant is almost half what was requested. The council asked for a non-HRA capital consent of £785,000 but it was granted £408,000. Because of that, the voluntary improvement and repairs grants scheme will be suspended, possibly for a full financial year, and that is just after it has been reconstituted. Many points have been made about the depletion of housing stock in Scotland and the difficulties in repairing ageing housing stock. The voluntary improvement and repairs grants scheme must be fully operational this year.

409
I now refer to Newmilns, a small town in my district. The council wished to provide grants to upgrade certain buildings. Again it looks as though that will not happen and that there will be difficulties.
A decision should be taken on whether a grant can be made available to improve Ananhill house, a listed building. Again, the figure is £50,000. As I said, the prospect of any expansion in the care scheme looks remote.
I have two further items to mention in this brief speech. The Minister will recall that when he came to see Long Park co-op scheme he was particularly keen for it to go ahead. I visited the scheme only seven weeks ago. I was impressed by the manner in which that co-op had undertaken its job and improved the standard of the housing and thereby the living standards of the people of Long Park. It now seems that there are difficulties with Scottish Development Agency funding to infill some mines under part of the secondary scheme. I hope that the Minister can do something about that. I cordially invite him to open the scheme when it is completed. I enjoy opening schemes in Kilmarnock, but I am prepared to forgo that pleasure if the Minister can come up with the money and come back to Kilmarnock. I guarantee him safe conduct.
All Opposition Members are absolutely appalled at the antics of Scottish Homes. It has increased rents throughout Scotland on average by 14·2 per cent. There is absolutely no reason for it other than, as I suspect, that pressures have been applied by the Scottish Office for it to put pressure in turn on those who continue to be tenants to buy their homes. That would remove Scottish Homes' responsibility further to improve those homes. Opposition Members universally condemn the increase.
Kilmarnock has held a policy and resources meeting and decided once again to send the A team down to meet the Minister. We are always cordially received by the Minister but neither I nor the council want to go to the expense of sending the A team down to London to make pleas which are already extremely well documented and which the Minister can read. To save us that expense and time, I ask the Minister to read the correspondence between his Department and Kilmarnock. If he makes a just judgment on the figures, I believe that the additional £370,000 that we seek—it is not a great deal—will be dispatched to Kilmarnock tout de suite.
9.37 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister was kind enough to dwell on the problems of Western Isles council, but he gave the wrong impression when he implied that it is somehow cushioned from the various cuts made not only this year but in previous years.
I appreciate that the Minister took time to meet a delegation from Western Isles council. Although no new money was put on the table, I felt that some progress, or potential progress, was made.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that a supplementary allocation has been made to the Western Isles for this year. It is admittedly a small sum—£130,000. The allocation was made in response to that representation.
Mr. Macdonald: That is welcome news as far as it goes. The Minister said that Western Isles council was receiving the highest support grant this year. That may be true, but, of course, the Western Isles, like many other authorities in the highlands and islands, faces considerable exceptional costs in providing public housing. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has already detailed some of those costs.
Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman shares with me the distinction of representing the single-tier islands authority. Has he had an opportunity to examine the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1991? The schedule to the order refers to Orkney Islands district council, Shetland Islands district council, Western Isles district council and Shetlands Islands district council. Is he aware that any such bodies exist?
Before we vote on this, perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, and your Clerk will consider whether the order is competent given that its schedule refers to bodies that do not exist.
Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of that important point—I hope that it does not nullify certain aspects of that order.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's council will receive the highest subsidy as a result of the order, so I hope that it will be considered competent for his constituents' sake.
Mr. Macdonald: I do not want to rehearse the points already made by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye about the exceptional building costs in areas such as the Western Isles and the highlands and islands. Those regions face additional costs because materials must be imported—in the case of the Western Isles they are carried over the Minches. Councils also face additional costs for repair and maintenance because of climatic factors. The scattered nature of public housing means that it is difficult to get the economies of scale obtained elsewhere.
There is a particular problem facing the Western Isles. The council's experience of paying interest on its capital debt is different from the Scottish Office assessment of those repayments. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has already said that a large part of the explanation for the exceptional capital debt faced by councils such as the Western Isles is the recent nature of that debt. On 31 March 1990 the total capital debt faced by the Western Isles was £111 million. In 1975, at the inception of the council, the debt was a mere £15 million—the debt has increased by some 640 per cent. The total comparable debt faced by all Scotish local authorities in 1975 was £2,965 million, but in 1990 it had risen to £7,982 million. The total Scottish debt has increased by 169 per cent. compared with the 640 per cent. debt increase faced by the Western Isles. That extra debt faced by the Western Isles is due to the higher number of consents granted by the Scottish Office under both Labour and Conservative Governments. When the Western Isles council was set up under the islands authority it had a great deal of leeway because it had to catch up on spending on various aspects of infrastructure, education and housing.
The average annual interest rate faced by authorities such as the Western Isles is now higher than the average faced by other local authorities because a greater

411
proportion of the debt is recent debt, which is more expensive than debt incurred before 1975. In years to come one of the key problems faced by the Western Isles and other local authorities will be the repayment of debt. I am grateful that, as a result of meetings, the Minister is willing to enter into discussions with COSLA to discuss that matter.
The Minister said that if the Government's estimate of the average interest rate faced by local authorities this year turned out to be an underestimate when the figures come in some clawback arrangement will be introduced and the Government will reassess their figures for the following year to make up the difference. That does not help local authorities to plug the gap this year.
That brings me to the key point, which is that the average interest rate does not take into account the different circumstances of local authorities. The difficulty is not only that the average interest rate may be higher this year than the Government estimate but that it will affect local authorities in different ways. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will not only reassess next year the extent to which the estimate given by the Scottish Office has fallen behind the real average but re-examine the practicality of making special arrangements for authorities that face exceptionally high interest rates because of factors that are outside their control.
9.46 pm
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: I want to draw the Minister's attention to certain areas in my constituency, starting with 1265 Pollokshaws road. In the past two years the Minister and I have become pen pals over it, but he still has not solved the problem. The complex consists of both district council housing and private housing built to a standard that has been rejected by the building societies which will not lend any money on it. The building leaks in the winter and is full of draughts in the summer. The windows and porches are full of dry rot. I have repeatedly asked the Minister to make an advance to ensure that the private owners in the complex have houses that are fit to live in. The Minister does his Pontius Pilate act and blames the district council. The council is blamed for a million things, including the fire of London and the black death. That is the only answer that we receive from the Scottish Office.
The Government continue to cut resources to Glasgow district council which, given the money, could make the residents' homes more suitable places in which to live. The district council renovated some of the homes under its control. The funny thing is that, even though the homes were renovated, people who took the Tory Government's advice and bought their homes now cannot sell them because the building societies will not lend any money to anyone who wants to buy them.
The Minister has said repeatedly over the past two years that that is not true. But the Halifax and the other building societies say, "Sorry. Too great a risk is involved in putting money into such buildings." I do not know how many times I have been to see the Minister. I am fed up with talking to him about the buildings. I have given him petitions and brought people to talk to him, but I have received no adequate response.
Perhaps as a result of pressure placed upon it the district council is engaged in a partial repair job. It is working on the windows and porches, but the roofs are left
412
unrepaired. The residents therefore suffer the indignity of using basins, pots, pans and pails to catch the water coming through the roof. For two years or more, your Government have done nothing to alleviate that suffering.
In Minard road, in the Shawlands area of Glasgow, a woman is living in a house with no roof. There are canvas covers where the roof should be. The district council cannot give her money because you will not advance it, despite the many complaints. You say that you have no money to give the district council, then you do your Pontius Pilate act and blame the council.
Mr. McKelvey: My hon. Friend is blaming Mr. Speaker. I am sure that he means the Minister.
Mr. Dunnachie: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Lack of grants is causing many problems for owner-occupiers in Pollok constituency and you and your party—sorry, Mr. Speaker—the Minister and his party have done nothing to alleviate the suffering of the people.
I could talk about Darnley; you know about Darnley, you have been there and you have seen the conditions in which people have to live. You have done nothing about that. In South Nitshill they have been waiting 30 years for modernisation; again, you have turned a blind eye. In central Pollok, again you have turned a deaf ear. In Kennishead there is the only multi-storey housing co-operative in Britain or Europe, and you have done nothing to help the people who are trying to help themselves. In God's name, will you do something to help the people of Pollok who are trying to make their houses fit to live in?
9.50 pm
Mr. Jim Sillars: Mr. Speaker, you certainly took a drubbing in that speech. It is not my intention to hold you responsible any further. I want to direct my remarks to the person who is responsible. The Minister is following the wrong policy. Obviously Cabinet sub-committees have lost the argument about the amount of resources available for Scottish housing.
The fundamental flaw in Government policy is that they believe that tenure is the way to solve the Scottish housing problem. That was put rather well by David Comley, the director of housing for Glasgow city council, in a speech in February 1989 at the Scottish branch conference in Aviemore of the Institute of Housing. He said:
"But, first, let's be clear what the fundamental problems of Scotland's housing are—poor quality, lack of investment, poverty".
There is a clear link between poor housing and economic activity, employment and wages. David Comley went on to give figures on two aspects of the problem:
"The Grieve Report, commissioned by Glasgow District Council, called for
—the investment of £1,720m from all sectors in Glasgow's housing, including £550m for the peripheral estates.
—the write off of the city's housing capital debt, currently £1·25 billion, as a contribution to this."
There is no question about it: the people who benefit most from the housing problems in Glasgow are the moneylenders. We have only to consider the extent of the loan charges in the information before us to see the truth in that. David Comley also said:
"The Government seems to be pre-occupied with tenure; it sees the low level of home ownership and of private renting as the basis of Scotland's and Glasgow's housing problem and a major contribution to economic problems. My view,

413
supported by the reports I have mentioned, is that lack of investment and the resulting condition of the housing stock, regardless of tenure, are the problems."
Those of us who represent constituencies in Glasgow know that there is 100 per cent. truth in what David Comley said almost two years ago.
Mr. Dunnachie: A good Labour man.
Mr. Sillars: I will not repeat that because it is not a sensible comment.
If we are seeking solutions to the housing problem, two things should happen in the forum where policy is made. First, the cry of despair of the people who have no homes, who are in overcrowded accommodation or who are badly housed—the people we meet in our surgeries—must be heard. It is not often that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and I agree, but I should like to pay him a compliment because in his speech he certainly imported into this forum the human problems which all of us meet day after day.
Secondly, we need a response to this private cry of despair, but we are not getting one in the capital consents and the various other policies presented by the Government this evening. The Government tell us that the sale of council houses is part and parcel of their policy of generating capital to meet some of the problems explained here tonight. But COSLA tells us in annex 3 of its brief that it understood that receipts from the sale of council houses would be used from the beginning to augment the capital programme, not to substitute it, but that since the last election the amount of money available for capital expenditure has steadily diminished while council house receipts have risen.
I must tell the Minister and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that the day of reckoning is coming in respect of council house sales. In Penilee, in my constituency, there is terraced housing, six in a block, in which three or four people have bought their houses. A pensioner couple decided that rents were becoming so high that, they might as well get a mortgage. Now they find themselves facing large repair and maintenance bills. They came to me for advice, and I said that I would see about a Government grant but that it could not be guaranteed. To be fair to the district council, it could not guarantee such a grant in the financial year in which the repairs were carried out.
Next, I advised the couple to go to the building society. The difference between what they paid for the house and its capital value now should have allowed an increase in the mortgage to meet this additional expenditure. But the old couple explained to me that that was impossible. They had bought the house in the first place because they lived on a relatively low income and could not afford the rent, so now it was impossible to afford the additional costs of a higher mortgage. So the fabric of this building in Penilee will continually deteriorate, and the same is happening in many other parts of the country.
These proposals, which show a substantial reduction in the resources allocated to Scottish housing, must be judged against the problems. It does not matter whether we use Government, Shelter, or district council statistics; we know that there has been a great increase in homelessness in all parts of Scotland. There is an enormous problem of
414
damp; 234,000 houses in Scotland suffer from it and it is a scourge for the families who have to live with it—80,000 of them in the city of Glasgow.
There is overcrowding and there are too many poor quality houses. I am sick and tired of hearing Conservative Members tell us about the alleged 20,000 empty council properties in Scotland. Would any of us live in those properties? The answer is, of course, no. There is also a lack of specialist housing—sheltered housing for the elderly, housing for the disabled and housing for young people, who are a vulnerable group. Matching the resources allocated to deal with the problem to the problem itself leads to only one conclusion—they are totally inadequate.
I should like to focus on the problems in my constituency. The area known as Corkerhill has a good community council and a good community leader in the shape of Walter Morrison. It is one of the best community councils in Glasgow, often regarded as a thorn in the flesh of the city council, which is what community councils are supposed to be. Corkerhill community council's public meetings are extremely well attended. Articulate and intelligent people gather to try to improve their circumstances. They live in an area of flat-roofed housing, and what they need more than anything else is pitched roofs. There is no money available for them. Now the district council finds it almost impossible to carry out repairs on the flat roofs because as the man walks across them to repair them he causes more damage. Tenants have problems with damp and their children have respiratory illnesses, all because of a lack of capital investment. It has nothing to do with tenure but everything to do with the amount of money available.
Moorpark is the area in Govan where the major drug dealing was done, but by a combination of community pressure and police action they got the major drug baron and the drug problem substantially out of the area. Nevertheless, it has high unemployment, there are many single-parent families, and there is a good deal of poverty. We went along to meet David Conley to argue our case for an improvement in housing because the folk there have no money of their own with which to generate improvement within the area, only to be told that because of the Government's policy there is no prospect of improvement in the current five-year programme and no guarantees for the next five-year programme. How do we stop that community slipping back into its former circumstances? It is, in the end, the Government's responsibility.
Only one conclusion can be drawn from an examination of the documents before the House about the human circumstances that we meet in the streets of Scotland: the Government are a failure, and the sooner they go, the better.
10.1 pm
Mrs. Irene Adams: As a new Member, I am absolutely shocked to find that for two thirds of this debate only three or four hon. Members sat on the Government Benches. Is that what the Government of the country think about Scottish public sector housing? Is that the interest that they are willing to give to it, and can the party with the largest number of hon. Members find only three or four to attend the debate? It is utterly disgraceful.
One thing that I have learnt from the debate, however, is that people who live in cardboard boxes in Edinburgh

415
are overcrowded because they keep their skis in those boxes. We know that they do because they go to the constituency of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) at weekends to ski. He told us this. He also told us that they come to pick berries and that they will not go away. Maybe we shall have to consider issuing visas for Tayside to make sure that they do not stay in his constituency. Does the hon. Member never ask himself why people move around like that? If they were settled in a decent home—
Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady why people come to my constituency: it is because it is such a beautiful place. If some come there to ski, it is not surprising.
Perhaps I should remind the hon. Lady that, although Conservative Members from Scotland have attended the debate, a lot of Labour Members from Scotland have not put in an appearance at all.
Mrs. Adams: I visit the hon. Member's constituency, but I do not go to pick berries and I do not have to look for a job or a home there. The difference between Opposition Members and Government Members is that we want everyone to live in decent homes, not just some of the people.
Homelessness in Scotland has risen dramatically under this Government. The present situation is almost comparable with that of 100 years ago, with nearly as many homeless people in this country today as there were then. It is a disgraceful indictment of any Government.
Homelessness affects one's whole way of life. It is not just that a person has no roof over his head or is living under someone else's roof. People may be inadequately housed. In Renfrew district, for example, there are 25,000 people on the waiting list. I am not suggesting that they are all homeless, but they are all inadequately housed. Inadequate housing affects people's lifestyles. Children are not educated properly because often there is no extra room in which they can study. Renfrew has massive overcrowding because it does not have the houses to which to move people. The best will and all the management in the world will not solve that problem. Resources are required.
Conservative Members tell us again and again that the problems are caused by mismanagement and that if we tinker here and there many of them can be solved. They are suggesting a redistribution of poverty, which is the basic reason for our housing problems. That poverty is a result of the Government's economic policy. People who do not have jobs lose their houses and have nowhere to go. The Government have deliberately set about destroying public sector housing. Scotland was an egalitarian society in which most people lived in public sector houses, but the Government told them that that was not a good idea and, as a result, the best public sector housing has been sold. The Government have not made available resources to replace those houses and have not given us the receipts from sales to reinvest in the houses that are left. As a result, those houses have continuously deteriorated.
Conservative Members have spoken about empty council houses. A shell without a roof is not an empty house, it is an empty shell. Of course people will not accept such houses. I certainly would not and I defy any Conservative Member to say that he would. The people who are offered such houses are often those who do not
416
have any resources to spend on them. They are single parents and people on fixed incomes. Some of the homelessness among such people has arisen because benefits are no longer available to some young people. Some households totally depend on state benefits and a young person of 17 who has no training, no job and no income cannot remain in such a household because his family cannot afford to keep him. The only way that he can become entitled to income is to go on to the streets and become homeless. His name will then be placed on the homeless list and he will be allocated a house and be entitled to benefit. The vicious circle continues.
Government policies have caused poverty, and that has created the homelessness which has destroyed Scotland's public sector housing. If the Government can offer no better answer than a massive reduction in the allocation of money, it is time that they moved over and moved off the park.
10.7 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: The last time that the Minister was in my constituency he was seen on a penny-farthing bike. At least that bike worked. The miserable pittance that the Minister has offered to solve some of Scotland's housing problems will lead to him being called the Minister of rent-a-tent. The Minister's predecessors over the past 10 years have been weak-willed wafflers.
Scotland's housing crisis breaks my heart, and I am sure that it breaks the heart of many hon. Members who receive letters on the subject. I should like to read one which speaks clearly about the problem being created by the Government. It states:
"Dear Mr. Graham,
I am desperately in need of your help. Due to a combination of low-paid work and high interest rates I have been forced to sell my house. After getting into difficulties with the payments I tried to catch up with my arrears, but this eventually became impossible and the building society advised me to sell before they took action themselves, this has left both my wife and I at our wits end— in fact my wife is on medication from her doctor.
In order to try to save our home my wife secured a part-time job in Linwood. However, if we were forced to leave Linwood she would have to give this job up because the hours fit in with my children's school hours."
The local authority has been nearly broken by the Government's mismanagement in failing to house people in such circumstances.
I have another letter which I am sure will break the hearts of many hon. Members on this side of the House. I hope that the Government will take some action because they have the power to do so. This is a letter from a sergeant in the Army for whom I have tried to secure a house. After 24 years in the Army, having given excellent service, he wishes to come to my area. He wants to stay with his family, with his mother and brother, and with people in the community. We cannot give him a house. The local authority has only a few left and there is not a big turnover in housing. But we have Scottish Homes, over which the Minister has absolute control. Did Scottish Homes respond to this man's need? No, it did not. The Under-Secretary of State should get the rules and regulations changed to allow this man to be housed by Scottish Homes or to allow the man even to purchase a Scottish home. The Government have denied him that right, too. The Minister should hang his head in shame if he cannot help a loyal service man with 24 years' service.

417
I have another letter to which I wish to draw attention although I shall not read it to the House. It is from an invalid, a woman suffering very serious health problems. She lives in another part of the country and wishes to come to our area. She has tried everything, but has been unsuccessful because the council does not have all the houses in its control. Our area is very much dominated by the houses owned by Scottish Homes. As hon. Members will know, Scottish Homes has become the biggest estate agency in Scotland. It does not contribute at all to solving the problem of homelessness or to assisting the people of Renfrewshire who wish to stay in the area.
I also instance in this debate the massive escalation in rents in my constituency. I believe that the Government are perpetrating mindless mugging. One has only to consider the escalating poll tax, increasing fuel costs, and the ongoing problem of homelessness, all of which have been created by this Government because of the economic position that they have taken in past years involving high interest rates. We know that factories in our area are closing practically every day of the week, yet the Government still continue their mad housing policy.
All hon. Members could quote cases such as I have instanced tonight. Scottish Office Ministers should argue the case, in Cabinet or wherever, to obtain sufficient money to build new houses. We desperately need new houses in Scotland. We also need money to renovate damp houses—houses in which people cannot live because the Government have constantly curbed funds for local government which wishes to improve such houses. I put it to the Minister that we also need sheltered housing accommodation. We need supported accommodation for some of the people whom this Government have thrown on the street. I refer to the mentally handicapped and mentally ill who are walking the streets in my area, in Glasgow and in other cities. The Minister has a duty and a responsibility to fight for the people of Scotland. There is a crisis and we need housing. Perhaps the Minister needs a pair of glasses. I shall give him some and then take him to see the problem.
It has been said tonight that the berry pickers are looking for houses. There are more than just berry pickers looking for houses—loyal service men will come home having fought a war for this country, and they will expect homes fit to live in.
10.16 pm
Mr. Gordon McMaster:: As a new Member, this is my first opportunity to participate in a Scottish housing debate. I read the orders carefully, and nowhere do they refer to tenants, those who depend on public sector housing. There are statistics—columns and columns of numbers—but there is nothing about those who depend on public sector housing.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) referred to the link between bad housing and bad health. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) has left the Chamber. He referred to the past, when councils ripped people away from the hearts of the cities. I had the pleasure today of welcoming my father as a visitor to the House. He was brought up in the constituency that I represent, in the town of Johnstone. His experience was of 100 people—24
418
families— sharing four outside toilets. Those are the sort of conditions that people were ripped away from in the hearts of the cities. Perhaps someone in the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman can afford that sort of nostalgia, but it is not something to which the people of Scotland want to return. It put my father in a sanatorium, and it is now endangering young children who suffer from asthma and bronchial complaints. That is the reality of Scottish housing and the lack of proper investment.
I am glad that my hon. Friends have tried to concentrate the debate on the fundamental right to shelter. They have concentrated on homes rather than dwelling units and put people before statistics. Some hon. Members have accused the Minister of indifference to the problems of Scottish housing. It is far worse than indifference. During the past decade, there has been the systematic and calculated destruction of a public sector housing system that has taken a century to build. The Government have tried to destroy it in a decade. Hon. Members have referred to the excellent briefing paper prepared by COSLA. Whatever is said, we cannot disguise the fact that during that decade £1,500 million of direct Government support has been taken away from Scottish local government and it cannot be denied that £100 million more is being taken away this year.
In my maiden speech on 12 December 1989, I said that if the housing support grant for Renfrew district council was restored to its 1979 level, when the Government took office, it would be 34 per cent.—another £11 million for the council. That money would not only improve housing and reduce homelessness, but it would help the local economy because that council expenditure would generate local jobs. That would improve the economic position of the whole area.
During the decade that the Government have had responsibility for Scottish housing, council house tenants have become the most heavily taxed people. Housing support grant has been lost, as has the general fund contribution, yet that is the part that society, the community as a whole, puts into public sector housing. Interest rates and inflation have risen, and that has also had an impact on local authority budgets. I believe that there is something more sinister. What has happened? In the last decade the best public sector houses have been sold leaving the worst and fewer tenants to finance them. That is the reality.
The Government have offered a carrot-and-stick solution: they have offered the carrot of discounts to those people wishing to purchase public sector houses, but they have stood behind them with a stick hitting them to ensure that we do not invest in public sector housing. If a person does not like the conditions in which he is living, if he wishes to improve his lot, and if he wants a wind and watertight house, he will need to purchase that house. That is what has happened to many people.
In conclusion, I draw attention to the plight of many young couples who, because of the problems facing Scottish housing, have been unable to obtain a public sector house. This has often forced them to enter into mortgages which they cannot afford. One of the sad housing statistics is that of the number of young people who are having their homes repossessed because they can no longer keep up the mortgage payments. This is one of the problems affecting constituencies such as mine. I invite the Minister to come, for example, to the Foxbar area where almost half the houses are uninhabitable and where

419
people who are living there are living in damp, deplorable conditions. These people had plenty of promises and statements in the Paisley, South by-election campaign, but they do not want sympathetic noises; they want action. The Government should give it to them.
10.21 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: Understandably, at present people's minds are elsewhere, but it is business as usual for many people in this country. It is business as usual for the homeless young people who are sleeping in cardboard city on the Embankment, not far from this place; it is business as usual for homeless people in Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland.
A few minutes ago my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) made a light-hearted and humorous comment about Edinburgh. I think that some people forget that, although Edinburgh is without doubt one of the most prosperous cities in Europe, at the same time it has formidable problems, particularly in housing. Just before Christmas a great deal of attention was focused on the plight of homeless people in Edinburgh. On the same day that the Prime Minister announced extra money for the homeless in London I asked the Scottish Office what it intended to do for Scotland. The answer was "nothing". Yet within a few hours the Scottish Office had cobbled together an announcement that £2 million had been allocated to Scotland.
We found out what that £2 million was. It was not additional money being made available to Scotland; it was simply borrowing consent for the four major cities of Scotland. For every penny those cities borrow, the interest has to be paid, not by the taxpayers as a whole, but by council house tenants. Therefore, existing council house tenants in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen will have to shoulder the burden of providing what little extra help there is for homeless people. Of the £2 million being made available, Edinburgh has put in for £1 million. Perhaps that is ambitious, because it is half the programme. If the city gets that £1 million it will provide just 16 beds—16 beds in a city with more than 6,000 homeless people. Half of those 6,000 are in priority need. It is estimated—and it can only be an estimate—that 200 people in Edinburgh sleep rough every night, in graveyards, in the streets, anywhere they can find, every night of the year. There has been a 200 per cent. increase in the homeless rate for 16 to 24-year-olds, young people who are increasingly at risk from violence and sexual abuse. Many of them turn to prostitution, male and female. It is one of the scars of Scotland that in Edinburgh, which is one of the most prosperous cities in Europe, there is this ugly side to the city of people who are in desperate need. The Government are not willing to face the real problem.
The Minister will say that there are empty houses in Edinburgh. Yes, there are. Edinburgh district council is doing all it can to speed up its allocation policies. But there are other problems. Some houses need repair before they can be let and, as other hon. Members have said, people understandably will not take houses that are not fit for reletting.
Another problem is that now that there is no single payment from the Department of Social Security people who are offered houses might not be able to furnish them. Community care grants are being limited and cut in
420
Edinburgh as in other areas. Yet until this year Edinburgh received no housing support grant. This year it received a mere £500,000.
In addition to that problem, the record of Scottish Homes in Edinburgh is abysmal. Edinburgh has 26 per cent. public sector housing, but this year it received only £10·1 million from Scottish Homes, £9 million of which was for committed projects, so only £1 million was available in new money. Yet Glasgow, which has 60 per cent. public sector housing and a population only twice that of Edinburgh, had five times the amount that Edinburgh had from public funds.
I do not grudge Glasgow a single penny of that, but why on earth should Edinburgh lose out so badly? The Government say that that is nothing to do with them and that it is a matter for the quango that they appointed—Scottish Homes. But the lack of public sector rented accommodation means that pensioners who want to live in sheltered housing and in the centre of the city, rather than be shifted out to the schemes in the periphery, cannot do so, young couples who could never afford to buy have no accommodation to choose from, and a growing number of single people have nowhere to go at all.
The Government's policy is all over the place. It is clear that they want to reduce the number of people who live in public sector housing, but when will they face up to the fact that, even if they reduce the number of people in public sector housing, a large core of people will still have no choice other than to rely on public sector housing? They include pensioners and young people who do not have the spending power to buy their own houses.
What will happen to that large core of people for whom buying a house is simply not an option? The Government do not seem to have an answer. Certainly the chairman of Scottish Homes does not have an answer. He refers to something called social housing, as one might expect from a retired diplomat. He has no idea of the problems facing the people in Scotland, and in Edinburgh in particular.
Too often people look at Edinburgh—at Princes street, the castle and the Georgian new town—and they think that it is a prosperous city. Some of it is, but behind those Georgian facades and beside some of those magnificent buildings that are the envy of many tourists who visit Edinburgh there is much hardship and grief. That may give rise to laughter among Scottish Office Ministers, but the time has come when the Scottish Office should stop acting as simply a branch office of the Department of the Environment and realise that the urgent and ugly problems in Edinburgh need to be tackled now.
10.27 pm
Mr. David Lambie: I have little time left, so I shall make only two important points.
Every hon. Member who has spoken tonight has pointed out the serious housing problem facing Scotland. More than 90 per cent. of those people who contact us at our surgeries, whether of a Labour or a Conservative Member of Parliament, have housing problems. Yet, as councillors keep telling us, we as Members of Parliament have nothing to do with housing. Such is the crisis that the Scottish people are facing that, as a last resort, they have to go to their Members of Parliament.
The orders are another attempt by the Government to hammer public sector housing and council tenants. During the past 10 years in Scotland public sector housing finance

421
has dropped by £1·5 billion. I would accept that if the Government were trying to reduce the amount of money given to housing in the United Kingdom budget, but they are not doing that. During the past 10 years, when they have hammered council houses and taken away £1 x00B7;5 billion in resources for council houses, they have increased tenfold the amount of money being given to the owner-occupier and the private sector. At the same time they have increased substantially the amount given to owner-occupiers.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that mortgage tax relief was not really a subsidy. I remind the hon. Gentleman and all his Tory colleagues that the Adam Smith Institute—the think tank of the Tory party—said that the party and the Government had no right to subsidise owner-occupiers. In fact, a recent Chancellor considered doing away with mortgage tax relief. Why do not the Tories carry out Tory party policy in the case of owner-occupiers? They do so in the case of council tenants. Let us have an even playing field, rather than continual attacks on council tenants.
Lastly, I want to raise a problem from my constituency. The biggest part of the constituency is the new town of Irvine, where there is a tremendous housing problem. The Government have brought people into the new town. Those people have been provided with jobs, and good amenities, including very modern houses. But the urban development corporation is not being provided with money to supply houses for second-generation families. I want the Minister to ask his colleague who is responsible for new towns to look into the problem and see that money is provided for this purpose.
On a previous occasion I requested a meeting with the Minister to discuss the problem. That was after his refusal and the refusal of his officials to meet representatives of Cunninghame district council. In a communication to the council the Minister said that the development corporation was not to be given any money to provide houses for second-generation families, as that was the job of the council. Again, under these orders, he has the cheek to give Cunninghame district council not one penny towards housing support grant—not a penny for houses for second-generation families.
The Minister is quite a decent chap. Let him ensure that Cunninghame district council is given the money to provide houses for second-generation families in Irvine new town.
10.34 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This has been a very useful and varied debate. I shall look into the point that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) made. Some time ago, in a similar debate, he mentioned the Adam Smith Institute's recommendation that there should be a rents-to-mortgages scheme—something for which the hon. Gentleman has called. We are doing precisely that—aiming for a wholly new market. The recommendation will be followed through in due course, and I shall be meeting the housing committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the subject.
Mr. Lambie: That is not what I called for. I called for the abolition of mortgage tax relief, which is Tory party policy as recommended by the Adam Smith Institute.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has made that point twice in our debates, once in the Scottish Grand Committee and once on the Floor of the House when he addressed my right hon. and learned Friend the previous Secretary of State for Scotland. He may have made the point as a joke, but he made it very effectively and we are acting on it.
In response to the hon. Members for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), I must point out that the HRA provisional allocation for Renfrew district council amounts to more than £17 million, which represents £535 per council house. That is an increase over the provision for 1990–91 of £528 per house. We are taking the urban partnership initiative very seriously and we have already made available £1·257 million extra for innovative housing.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) referred to 1265 Pollokshaws road. Glasgow district council recently stated that it is willing to make grants available for improvements to those properties. I hope that that will be of considerable assistance to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. However, the hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the significance of the assistance that Glasgow district council can provide.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) referred to someone buying a flat in a council house block of four and asked whether that person would be eligible for an improvement grant. That may be at the discretion of the local authority depending, on how recently the house was—[Interruption.]
I want now to consider the funding for Glasgow to which reference was made by the hon. Members for Springburn, for Pollok and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). As the largest housing authority in Scotland, Glasgow continues to receive the largest share of resources available—more than 20 per cent. of the provision. For 1991–92 the council's HRA allocation of £92 million includes £4·6 million to honour commitments given for innovative housing in Castlemilk in Cathcart. Excluding that earmarked provision, the allocation gives the council an allocation of £616 per council house which is considerably above the Scottish average of £559. The council's net allocation of £60 million is 11 per cent. higher than the corresponding allocation for 1990–91. That increase, together with the resources of around £16 million which the council expects to draw down from its covenant scheme, should enable it to sustain its substantial capital programme. With regard to non-HRA moneys, the allocation of £23 million should support activity.
Mr. Dunnachie: What?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should not belittle that £23 million and the point that he made about his constituents could be covered there.
Glasgow does particularly well with regard to housing support grant. It received more than £22 million, which is more than 40 per cent. of the total payable in Scotland, while Glasgow has less than 20 per cent. of the council housing stock.
We would not have guessed from the debate that Edinburgh had just received an allocation of more than £8

423
million to deal with the pre-1984 tenement block applications. That sum should finish the exercise and that fact should be acknowledged.
Mr. Maxton: Following the Minister's remarks about housing support grant for Glasgow, will he make it clear that he is cutting Glasgow's housing support grant by very nearly £2 million?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must take account of what I said about interest rates, which have an effect on the total sum. I appreciate that Glasgow's rents have increased significantly in recent years and, although I accept that part of that increase is attributable to reductions in general fund contributions, the major reason is that the council chose to enter into large covenant agreements. It knew before doing so that those agreements were not eligible for housing support grant. However, Edinburgh has a considerably higher allocation than the Scottish average of £559. It receives £685 per house, and the public sector contribution in Edinburgh's capital programme will rise from more than £6 million to £12 million in 1991–92, a substantial increase of more than 112 per cent. It is remarkable that Edinburgh has a £2 million surplus on its revenue account which it could use if it wished. That, of course, is a matter for Edinburgh. No doubt the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will know why it has not been used.
Mr. Darling: As it happens, I raised that very point with some senior officials from Edinburgh district council, and the Minister knows the answer. Does he accept that the £8 million ceiling that has been allocated for the housing repair grant scheme deals only with pre-1984 applications and that several thousand people are still waiting for allocations after that time? Will the Minister also consider my point about Scottish Homes? Why is it that Glasgow, with twice the population of Edinburgh, gets five times as much as Edinburgh does for the traditional rented sector in the housing association programme?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Glasgow gets a larger share because needs in Glasgow are greater than those in Edinburgh. No fair-minded Scottish Member of Parliament would deny that. Edinburgh has problems, and rooflessness, which is not the same as homelessness, is a particular one. I take seriously the representations that have been made. There is no simple solution. The programmes that are being put forward will be carefully considered. We hope to respond as soon as possible. We are making a non-housing revenue account allocation of more than £18 million to Edinburgh, so it is doing very well.
Mrs. Fyfe: I address my remarks to my colleagues. Are we not sick of statistics being bandied year after year? Ministers attempt to deceive the public by talking of vast amounts of capital allocation which we know have already been spent. They do not talk about the real figures that matter. How long must people languish in houses that are totally unfit to live in? [Interruption.] We want to know for how long our constituents will have to live in deplorable housing conditions. We have had the tenants' campaign—[Interruption.]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have visited the hon. Lady's constituency several times. Progress is being made, not least by Queens Cross housing association, which is
424
effectively in her constituency. Scottish Homes, through the housing associations and the housing association movement before Scottish Homes was set up, spent nearly £0·5 billion in Glasgow.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) made an important point about the pool rate of interest used in the housing support grant calculations. If the hon. Gentleman cares to examine the record of previous years, he will note that the pool rate has proved to be a reasonably accurate guide to the interest payable by each authority. I know of no reason why the pool rate should suddenly be regarded as inaccurate. However, as I said earlier, I should be happy for the use of the pool rate to be discussed further with the convention. I mentioned also that the authorities in the highlands and islands a re major beneficiaries of housing support grant. Next year, Ross and Cromarty will receive a subsidy of more than £700 per council tenant. Inverness receives £267 per tenant and Lochaber receives £977 per tenant. On average in Scotland, the subsidy amounts to only £76 per tenant. Those areas in the highlands are doing better than the Scottish average, which is only fair when all circumstances are taken into account.
We have made a supplementary allocation today to Ettrick and Lauderdale, to Roxburgh, Stirling, Kincardine and Deeside, to Western Isles and to Hamilton of £825,000. Of course, final allocations remain to be paid. We shall take into account the points that have been made.
On capital investment in relation to resources generally for Scotland, under the Labour Government there was a reduction in real terms of 36 per cent. However, there has been an increase in real terms of 13 per cent. since 1978–79. Indeed, the provisional housing capital allocation fell by £520 million.
The Government have a good record. Through Scottish Homes we have created a powerful housing development agency funded with more than £1,140 million. Since we came to power we have done a great deal to increase the number of amenity dwellings. The number has more than quadrupled. We have increased the number of sheltered dwellings to over 28,600. We have responded to the aspirations of the Scottish people by introducing not only the right to buy but soon the rents-to-mortgages scheme which will be accessible to 370,000 tenants—even if the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) regrets that he asked for the scheme some years ago. I shall be happy to remind him of what he said in Hansard.
We have demonstrated our determination to provide the resources and guidance needed to enable local authorities to deal efficiently and sensitively with the difficult problem of homelessness. It is often forgotten that since 1979 some 220,000 houses have been built in Scotland. Virtually 60,000 of those were built by the public sector and housing associations.
Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have only one minute to go.
The orders provide a fair and reasonable subsidy package for 1991–92 and I am glad to recommend that the House approve them.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 150.

Division No. 46]

[10.46 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

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

Alexander, Richard

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Harris, David

Allason, Rupert

Haselhurst, Alan

Amess, David

Hawkins, Christopher

Amos, Alan

Hayes, Jerry

Arbuthnot, James

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hayward, Robert

Aspinwall, Jack

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Hill, James

Beggs, Roy

Hind, Kenneth

Bellingham, Henry

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Boswell, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Bottomley, Peter

Irvine, Michael

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Jack, Michael

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Janman, Tim

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Jessel, Toby

Bowis, John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Brazier, Julian

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Bright, Graham

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

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

Kilfedder, James

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Knapman, Roger

Budgen, Nicholas

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Burns, Simon

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Burt, Alistair

Knowles, Michael

Butler, Chris

Knox, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Lang, Ian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Lawrence, Ivan

Carrington, Matthew

Lee, John (Pendle)

Carttiss, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Chapman, Sydney

Lilley, Peter

Chope, Christopher

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Lord, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Colvin, Michael

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Maclean, David

Couchman, James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Cran, James

Madel, David

Curry, David

Malins, Humfrey

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

Mans, Keith

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Maples, John

Day, Stephen

Marland, Paul

Dicks, Terry

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mates, Michael

Dover, Den

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Dunn, Bob

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Durant, Sir Anthony

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Dykes, Hugh

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Emery, Sir Peter

Miller, Sir Hal

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Mills, Iain

Favell, Tony

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Mitchell, Sir David

Forman, Nigel

Moate, Roger

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Monro, Sir Hector

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Morrison, Sir Charles

French, Douglas

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Moss, Malcolm

Gill, Christopher

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Nelson, Anthony

Goodlad, Alastair

Neubert, Sir Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gregory, Conal

Norris, Steve

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Page, Richard

Hampson, Dr Keith

Paice, James

Hannam, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

426

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Summerson, Hugo

Porter, David (Waveney)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Powell, William (Corby)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Price, Sir David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Temple-Morris, Peter

Redwood, John

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Rhodes James, Robert

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Thorne, Neil

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Thornton, Malcolm

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Thurnham, Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Tredinnick, David

Ryder, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Sackville, Hon Tom

Twinn, Dr Ian

Sayeed, Jonathan

Walden, George

Shaw, David (Dover)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Waller, Gary

Shelton, Sir William

Ward, John

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Warren, Kenneth

Sims, Roger

Watts, John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wells, Bowen

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wheeler, Sir John

Speed, Keith

Whitney, Ray

Speller, Tony

Widdecombe, Ann

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wilkinson, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wilshire, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Winterton, Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

Wood, Timothy

Stern, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mr. Irvine Patrick and

Stokes, Sir John

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Flynn, Paul

Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

Foster, Derek

Allen, Graham

Foulkes, George

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fyfe, Maria

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

George, Bruce

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Battle, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Beckett, Margaret

Gordon, Mildred

Beith, A. J.

Graham, Thomas

Bellotti, David

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Benton, Joseph

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Boyes, Roland

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bradley, Keith

Grocott, Bruce

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Harman, Ms Harriet

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Haynes, Frank

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hinchliffe, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Buckley, George J.

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Caborn, Richard

Home Robertson, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Canavan, Dennis

Howells, Geraint

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hoyle, Doug

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Crowther, Stan

Ingram, Adam

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Darling, Alistair

Kennedy, Charles

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

Kirkwood, Archy

Dewar, Donald

Lambie, David

Dixon, Don

Lamond, James

Doran, Frank

Leadbitter, Ted

Douglas, Dick

Leighton, Ron

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Eadie, Alexander

Livsey, Richard

Eastham, Ken

Loyden, Eddie

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McAllion, John

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

McCartney, Ian

Fearn, Ronald

Macdonald, Calum A.

Fisher, Mark

McFall, John

427

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Rooker, Jeff

McKelvey, William

Rooney, Terence

McLeish, Henry

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McMaster, Gordon

Ruddock, Joan

McWilliam, John

Short, Clare

Madden, Max

Sillars, Jim

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Spearing, Nigel

Martlew, Eric

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Maxton, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Meale, Alan

Strang, Gavin

Michael, Alun

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Turner, Dennis

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Vaz, Keith

Morgan, Rhodri

Wallace, James

Morley, Elliot

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Murphy, Paul

Wareing, Robert N.

Nellist, Dave

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

O'Hara, Edward

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

O'Neill, Martin

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Parry, Robert

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Patchett, Terry

Wilson, Brian

Pike, Peter L.

Winnick, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Prescott, John

Worthington, Tony

Primarolo, Dawn

Wray, Jimmy

Quin, Ms Joyce

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Redmond, Martin

Reid, Dr John

Tellers for the Noes:

Richardson, Jo

Mr. Jack Thompson and

Robertson, George

Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
It being more than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the previous motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Order [18 January], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Representation of the People [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Representation of the People Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be paid out of that Fund under any other enactment.—[Mr. Maples.]
10.59 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I hope that the Minister can give the House an explanation. It is worth making the request, because the Bill was taken in a Second Reading Committee on 18 December. The circumstances arose apparently because of advice from Mr. Speaker's Counsel. It was found that the maximum expenditure laid down was ultra vires. I cannot recall accurately the circumstances, but the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments discussed at least one order relating to returning officers' expenses. The legislation may result from that.
All I seek is an assurance from the Minister that the orders that the Treasury will introduce under the powers granted by the Bill, which will cover the expenditure of returning officers, will represent expenditure previously carried out under different legislation, and that there will not be reductions in the amount of expenditure granted by the Treasury to returning officers.
I mention this because there is an apparent conflict. The explanatory and financial memorandum on the Bill says:
"there will, however, be no net increase in expenditure attributable to the Bill."
Yet the money resolution says that it will cover
"any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be paid out of that Fund under any other enactment."
The fund referred to is the Consolidated Fund.
I do not object to an increase in expenditure because, like all hon. Members, I think that money for returning officers is extremely well spent, especially when it has such good results as in Bradford, South where we tripled our majority. Of course, we want much better results at the next general election. We want to make sure that returning officers have adequate facilities to count the massive votes that will be cast for Labour. I should like to hear the Minister's comments.
11.2 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): The hon. Gentleman is right in his description of what gave rise to the Bill. It was found that under the Representation of the People Act 1983, which says that the Treasury shall prescribe maximum charges, we had difficulty in prescribing maximum charges because what: may be an appropriate maximum for one constituency is not necessarily appropriate for another. Therefore, we were faced with setting amounts that would be too low for some, or so high that they might encourage returning, officers to spend up to the prescribed amount. The regulations prescribed that in certain cases there would be specific monetary amounts and in other cases what would be recoverable would be actual and necessary costs. It was that which was found by the Speaker's Counsel to be ultra vires. We were advised that it did not fit within the power to prescribe maximum charges.
The most recent regulations use the phrase "authorised maximum" in cases where it is difficult to prescribe a

429
maximum. That is defined as being the amount that was spent at the 1987 election, with an uplift of 30 per cent. The problem is that that cannot continue to work past the next boundary reorganisation. It would be difficult to make it work at the next general election when the Milton Keynes constituency is to be split into two.
We had to face the problem. We have dealt with it by putting the law in the position which everyone thought that it was in before, which is that returning officers will be able to recover all expenses that were reasonably incurred, as long as those expenses are under a heading that is prescribed in the regulations. Again, where it is appropriate, the regulations will prescribe maximum payments. In that respect, the Bill will put the law back into the position that we all understood it to be in before.
The reference in the money resolution is to a slightly different problem. Sometimes expenses incurred by returning officers quite properly exceeded the maximums laid down in law. We are advised that under the 1983 Act it was possibly not legal to pay more than the amounts of money prescribed, although in some cases payments were made. Most of the payments under the original Act and under this Bill are made out of the Consolidated Fund, but when extra-statutory payments were made to reimburse returning officers for amounts over and above authorised expenses, they were paid out of voted money. It is that with which the money resolution deals; the hon. Gentleman will find that it refers to section 29(4A) of the 1983 Act.
I hope that I have answered the questions asked by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
Question put and agreed to.

The Press (Conduct)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
11.5 pm
Ms. Clare Short: All hon. Members are aware that parts of the British press have behaved so badly in recent years that Bills supporting the right to reply and the legal right to privacy have gained great favour in the House. As a result, the Government set up the Calcutt committee, which recommended that the Press Council should be replaced by the strengthened Press Complaints Commission. Both the Calcutt report and the Government have said that, if self-regulation does not work, it should be replaced by a statutory tribunal, with statutory powers, implementing a statutory code of practice.
I should like to share with the House my experience of how these new arrangements are working. Members will be aware that Patricia Chapman, the editor of the News of the World, is a member of the new commission—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—established, I understand, on 1 January. I want to tell the House what she has been trying to do to me.
First, I set out the background. On 12 March 1986 I introduced a Bill to remove from our newspapers pornographic pictures of women. I believe that such pictures degrade women and newspapers and set the tone for some of the most shameful and objectionable parts of our newspaper tradition. The Murdoch tabloids did not like the Bill. That resulted in a campaign of vilification against me in The Sun. Stories appeared about "Crazy Clare", "Killjoy Clare", and
"20 things you ought to know about Crazy Clare",
accompanied by a succession of ugly photographs and invitations to readers to write in, freepost, to "stop crazy Clare" and to send for car stickers to "stop crazy Clare". The paper sought to portray me as an ugly harridan, a killjoy woman.
After some years the campaign fizzled out. Action then moved to the News of the World, The Sun's sister paper. The direction of the campaign changed, too. On 10 December 1990, a story appeared headlined
"Labour's lovelies—Ad in Clare's paper that thrilled Grandad"
—fine English, Members will agree. The story was accompanied by an extremely ugly photo of me and by two large old-fashioned pornographic photos. The story was that Tribune, a weekly Labour party paper, had carried a small advertisement suggesting that people
"send for grandad's naughty pictures".
That was all. The story could have been aimed at any member of the Labour party, including its leader.
I saw the story, did not like it but knew that it was ridiculous, and did nothing. Then, on 28 October 1990, a second story appeared, with another ugly photo of course. The headline was:
"Anti-porn MP's ex-aide quizzed over porn!"
The article claimed that a woman who had worked for me on my "page three" Bill had been raided in connection with pornographic videos. That was a lie. The paper did not check the facts.
Instead, I received a phone call on the Saturday morning before the paper appeared, just before leaving for my constituency advice bureau. The caller was a woman who said that she was a freelance reporter who needed my

431
help. She said that I was her last chance. She wanted, she said, to contact someone who had worked for me and my husband and she asked if I could possibly help. I said that I was sorry but that I had not seen the person for years and had no idea where she was. The caller then said that a woman had been raided in connection with pornographic videos. I said that I knew nothing about that. She then asked what I thought about it. I said that this was getting silly, that I did not understand what she was doing, that she had asked my help but I could not give it and that I had to go to my advice bureau. I then put the phone down.
The story appeared and quoted me as saying
"I haven't seen her for some time. I don't know where she is living."
It went on to say:
"Then she slammed the phone down."
Note the change in my words from "haven't seen her for years" to "haven't seen her for some time", a necessary distortion of the very little that I had said, not in answer, of course, to the basic question that needed to be asked, so that an untrue story could be carried.
The woman concerned had years ago worked for a number of hon. Members. She had worked for my husband for a time before he lost his seat in the 1983 election. I was elected and I took her on to prevent her from being unemployed, but it did not work out, she left of her own volition after a short time and I have not seen or heard of her since. If the News of the World had bothered to ask, I could have told it so. It did not, because it would have ruined its false story.
I decided then—at the end of October—that this was too much. Two stories had appeared, in effect suggesting that I was a pornographer and therefore a hypocrite. The direction of the smear had changed—no longer "Killjoy Clare" but "Pornographer Clare". I decided that I should take action this time. I complained to the Press Council, I wrote to the paper, and I made an official complaint to the police.
I made the complaint to the police because the source of the story was a letter found by the police during the course of a raid, quite a proper raid—I do not know much about it but I assume that it was a proper raid—on this woman. The letter dated back to the period when she had worked for me and was completely unconnected with the criminal investigation, but some police officer had passed it to the News of the World.
I received a kind and helpful reply from Commander Richard Monk, head of the obscene publications squad at New Scotland Yard:
"Although we have not met, I know of your strong support for the work we do against pornography and especially child sex abuse, and I was sorry to receive it."
He said that he had put the investigation in hand and went on:
"Meanwhile I can only offer my annoyance that a newspaper has treated such a piece of irrelevant information in such an unfair way and my own keen interest to have the source of the information identified if at all possible."
I also got a small apology in the News of the World, with a less ugly photo than usual.
But now, after that, it seems that the News of the World is angry with me for complaining, and wishes to smear and belittle me further. On 10 January 1991 I got a phone call from a very good friend in Leeds. She had been contacted by a man whom I had married when I was 18, when we were both students. The marriage ended 20 years ago. John Chapman—I suggest that all hon. Members will
432
remember the name; I have never met this man but he is the one who goes for the grot, and I presume that if someone gets in a room with him that person is in danger of catching a disease associated with sewage—of the News of the World had been to see my ex-husband, asking about our marriage, how it had ended and what I had done afterwards. Questions had been asked with horrendous, deeply hurtful, unbelievable and completely false implications. Had he any "naughty" photographs of me? Photos of me in a nightdress were discussed. Five thousand pounds was firmly offered and the possibility of as much as £20,000 was discussed. I know the photos. They are not improper, but I would find it terrible to see them published in the News of the World.
As hon. Members may imagine, I was pretty upset by this. I was told that the story was to be run the following Sunday. I lived in horror until then. Then they suggested the next Sunday—and so it goes on. I prefer to tell my story here tonight.
I should also explain that I have been aware for some time that members or ex-members of the West Midlands serious crimes squad have been pushing a story about me to the press. I know this because a number of journalists have telephoned me to warn me. They said that it was clearly not a story but was an attempted smear. They had no intention of touching it but thought that I ought to know. I wondered what I should do about it, but decided that there was nothing that I could do and that I should rely on the decency of journalists and their code of conduct —I reckoned without Patricia Chapman, the News of the World and Mr. John Chapman.
The House may be aware that in an Adjournment debate on 25 January 1989 1 raised the case of my constituent Paul Dandy who had been charged by the serious crimes squad with a very serious offence. He had spent nearly a year in prison and in that time had attempted to commit suicide. The case against him had collapsed in court when it had been demonstrated forensically that his confession, on which the charge relied, had been fabricated: his statement to the police had been rewritten and the confession inserted. His lawyers contacted me because they were dissatisfied at the way in which his complaint against the police had been handled. They also put me in touch with other lawyers who provided evidence of similar malpractice in other cases. They all told me that such malpractice was widespread in the West Midlands serious crimes squad. I thought that I should bring such a serious matter to the attention of the House.
My speech received a good deal of coverage and later, after other cases had collapsed in court, the squad was disbanded, a major investigation is taking place into the work of the squad, and a number of other cases are being taken back to court and men who were wrongly convicted released from prison. What I said in my Adjournment debate has proved to be true, and I invite hon. Members to read the debate.
I should make it clear, because this is part of the News of the World attempted smear, that my action to deal with problems in one small unit of the West Midlands police force does not interfere with the very good relationship that I have with my local police force, which is very helpful when I approach it on behalf of constituents. In Ladywood, as elsewhere, we need the protection of our

433
local police. They and I have worked together on many cases and issues in order to ensure that local people are properly protected from crime.
Following my speech, various people in Birmingham, in shops and in the street, stopped me to say that they thought that I was right to say what I said. More than one said that I should be careful and to drive and go carefully in case the squad tried to get back at me. I was grateful for their concern but did not believe that such a thing would happen. I was wrong.
The story that ex-squad officers have been pushing to the press and in which the News of the World is primarily interested concerns a close friendship that I had with a man in the early 1970s when I was working in the Home Office and was positively vetted by the British security services. The man concerned was Afro-Caribbean. That may seem terrible to the News of the World and to ex-members of the serious crimes squad, but I should tell them that I grew up in Handsworth and that 40 per cent. of my constituents are Afro-Caribbean or Asian. Throughout my life large numbers of my friends have been black. I consider that to be good and a good part of my life and not a matter for a smear in the News of the World.
The man concerned lived in my house in Birmingham for some years. That may seem steamy to the News of the World, but in that house also lived two of my sisters, one of my brothers, a Chilean refugee couple, an American writer, some architecture students and others. They did not all live there at the same time. It was not that big a house, but it was a happy house and we were all good friends.
The man in whom the News of the World is interested later went to live abroad and, of course, I completely lost touch with him. In 1979 he apparently came back to Birmingham and was killed in a shooting in a car. The West Midlands police and, I now realise, the serious crimes squad investigated the murder. Officers came to see me when I was at work as the director of Youthaid in 1979. I told them all that I knew, and that was the end of it. They also called on everyone who knew him. One of my brothers whom they also went to see said that the police commented on the large number of nice friends that he had.
Many people can testify to this man's character at that time. He was known and liked by many good people. The News of the World has suggested in a letter to my solicitor that this man had some very serious previous convictions. I do not know whether that is true. I am tempted to say that, coming from the News of the World, it probably is not, but perhaps it is. I assume that everyone can now see the sort of story that the News of the World plans to write and the new direction of the smear that it wishes to throw at me. I can only say that neither I nor any of that man's other friends was aware of such convictions or know the reasons for his death. He is not alive to answer for himself, and I understand that the person who killed him has never been found.
My husband of 25 years ago was at first intrigued by the News of the World approach and played it along a little. He was kind enough afterwards to contact me and give me a full account of everything that was said. I know that my ex-husband now feels deeply aggrieved by what took place. He believes that the conversation was tape recorded, although he insisted that it be confidential. He now
434
understands that the News of the World was using him to get at me. He feels aggrieved that his privacy was so seriously invaded because, in order to use him to get at me, the newspaper had quite improperly gone through all sorts of private details of his life.
My solicitor has complained to the News of the World about the offer of money for photographs and about some of the newspaper's most awful questions. The News of the World has denied both matters. I have to say, "They would, wouldn't they?" It is quite impossible for any reasonable person who hears the whole story to believe the News of the World denial, but the editor of the News of the World has to pretend, because of her place on the Press Complaints Commission, that the paper did not do such things.
I should like to mention one other matter about my life. I do not want to talk in the House about my personal life, but as the News of the World appears to be planning to print a distorted account of my whole life, I prefer to tell the House the truth.
Many Members of this House remember with affection my husband Alex Lyon. They often send good wishes to him through me. Some hon. Members know that he is terribly ill and that I am doing my best to look after him as well as do my job as a Member of Parliament. I think, although I cannot be certain because he cannot explain things clearly to me, that the News of the World has been to see him. He kept talking about some man who had called. I suspect, but I may be wrong, that it was the News of the World.
I must ask the News of the World not to seek to smear and belittle me. I also ask, as strongly as I can, that it does not seek to belittle my husband—it would not be difficult to do so in view of the condition that he is in. It would be deeply unfair and wrong to use him and his illness to get at me.
It appears that the News of the World has crawled over the whole of my adult life. I left home when I was 17 to go to university. I met and married my philosophy student husband. In the early 1970s I worked in the Home Office —that is the period in which the News of the World is most interested—and in the late 1970s I became involved with and married Alex Lyon. That brings the News of the World completely up to date.
The question is, why is the News of the World so interested in me? Why has it spent so much time trailing through my life? The answer is not just that it wants to smear and belittle me for the titillation of their readers; the real answer is political. Two motives come together—disgruntled ex-officers of the West Midlands serious crimes squad want to get at me, and the Murdoch tabloids hate me because I have said that they should not carry porn in their papers.
For those to whom this has not yet happened, I should like to warn hon. Members and the public that to have one's life crawled over by the News of the World is an extremely unpleasant experience. For the past two weeks I have been haunted by the Gulf and by the News of the World—the sublime to the ridiculous. I do not think that I should be distracted from my work in this House by that newspaper's squalid activities.
I wish to warn every Member of this House of the serious implications. If any one of them steps outside the political space allowed to them by the tabloid press, it can do it to them. It is a very serious matter, and I think that the Privileges Committee should consider it. After all, I am

435
not the only one. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) dared to stand against the former Prime Minister, and it did it to him. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) dared to say that it was time for the former Prime Minister to retire, and it did it to him. The hon. Members for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) dared to support the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in the Tory leadership battle, and it did it to them. There are probably others, but I do not read those newspapers.
Every Member of Parliament can be done over. Please do not think that one can escape because there is nothing to hide in one's life. Those newspapers can make the events of any ordinary life like mine seem sordid and squalid. It is a question of privacy, but it is also a very serious question of politics and democracy that should concern us all.
My conclusions—and I am sorry that I have taken so long—are that, first, hon. Members must take the issue seriously. It is me today, it will be one of them tomorrow. It involves the misuse of press power to prevent us from properly doing our job as Members of Parliament. Secondly, I say to my fellow citizens in the country, please do not think that this is a matter just for Members of Parliament; the newspapers can do it to anybody. If, for any reason, a member of a family comes to public attention, they will crawl over his or her life, distort the truth and hurt that person—who will not have the platform that I have to answer back. As we know, the newspapers are currently abusing even the families of people who have been lost in the Gulf.
Thirdly, I call for legislation as a remedy. My solicitor and I would like to say how enormously grateful I am to him for his help through this time—tells me that I could apply for an injunction to stop the News of the World, or sue it for defamation afterwards. I am better off than most of my fellow citizens, but I cannot possibly afford an injunction. I am not interested in money after I have been smeared and belittled. As long as I can pay my bills at the end of the week and care for those whom I have to care for, I am not interested in money. We need proper, cheap, efficient remedies to prevent what has happened. I note that the preventative hotline recommended by the Calcutt report has not yet been set up—otherwise I would have used it—and the Library tells me that that is now unlikely.
Lastly, and extremely importantly, I call for the sacking of the editor of the News of the World from the Press Complaints Commission. We cannot take self-regulation seriously for a minute when a person who organises events such as those that I have described is supposed to help to curb the excesses of the press.
I intend to ask the Privileges Committee to consider my case as I am being attacked for doing two things I did in this House as part of my life as a Member of Parliament. I shall complain also to the Press Complaints Commission and to the chief constable of the west midlands. I hope that he will be as helpful as Commander Monk. It is, after all, the same thing—the misuse by some police officers and the News of the World of irrelevant information obtained during a criminal investigation.
A healthy democracy needs a healthy press, and we do not have that in Britain. I believe that we should get on and legislate to improve the standards of our press.
11.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Having listened carefully to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), I can fully understand her feelings about the inquiries which she has reason to believe a Sunday newspaper and other journals—I believe that she referred to other sections of the press—are making about her personal life and relationships going back many years. Judging by what she says she has been told about the questions and the assumptions, and the assertions that lie behind them, I can readily understand why she is distressed and angered. I understand her reaction to the other unfriendly and inaccurate press coverage as she described it.
As the hon. Member for Ladywood mentioned, hon. Members on both sides of the House have been and remain concerned about journalistic abuses, especially invasions of privacy that cannot be justified in the public interest. The hon. Lady commented that a couple of years ago several private Members' Bills that would have given a right of privacy or a right of reply were introduced in response to cruel and irresponsible journalism that had caused widespread dismay in this place and among the general public. The Government were unable to support the Bills for reasons of principle and because of technical flaws. However, we announced on 21 April 1989 the setting up of a committee to consider the case for a new remedy for unwanted intrusions into privacy by the press.
The report of that committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. David Calcutt, was welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on 21 June 1990. We accepted its main recommendations, which were for the replacement of the Press Council by a Press Complaints Commission, for new offences of unwarranted invasion of privacy for publication purposes and for slightly stricter court reporting restrictions. At the same time, and consistent with the Calcutt committee's approach, we made it clear that self-regulation under a new Press Complaints Commission was the industry's last chance to put its house in order, and that we would review the effectiveness of the commission after 18 months' operation to ascertain whether it should be put on a statutory footing.
We are naturally pleased that the industry set up the Press Complaints Commission at the beginning of the year, and did so with considerable dispatch. The previous Home Secretary welcomed the appointment of Lord McGregor of Durris as its chairman for his mixture of independence of view and experience as chairman of the last Royal Commission on the press, and more recently of the Advertising Standards Authority.
However, the composition of the commission—something to which the hon. Member for Ladywood referred particularly—its remit and its adjudicatory code are not matters for the Government at this stage, and we would not wish to influence them. We have made it clear that we are concerned only with the effectiveness of the new arrangements in terms of making abuses things of the past. We are not concerned with the detail of those arrangements. It is for the commission to decide how best to regulate the industry, but it is clear to me that the issues to which the hon. Lady referred are matters for the commission. I am not so certain that any of the activities that she described would be caught by the offences of physical intrusion recommended by the Calcutt committee

437
and accepted in principle by the Government, but they may be. I shall have to read the hon. Lady's remarks carefully.
The commission is proposing to adjudicate according to a code that will be modelled on, but not identical to, that proposed by the Calcutt committee. The code includes matters such as inaccuracy, to which the hon. Member for Ladywood referred, confusion of fact and comment, to which again she referred, opportunity to reply and, pre-eminently, intrusion into privacy. I suggest that the hon. Lady should do what she said she was intending to do, although she was sorry that she did not have the hot-line to do it, and ask the commission to intercede in the matters that she has outlined before publication. If the
438
article is published, I suggest that she should consider whether to make a formal complaint on the ground that the code has been breached. Alternatively, I suggest that she takes both actions. For my part, I shall ensure that the official record of the debate is sent to the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. In that way, the commission will have, at the earliest opportunity, the full catalogue of intrusion, innuendo and distortion to which the hon. Lady is convinced that she is being subjected and which, as I say, I can well understand she finds deeply hurtful.
I shall consider carefully the references that the hon. Lady has made to the police, as well as all the other important and worrying points that she made during her speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  London House
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, under what terms the Commissioners hold 8 Barton street, London house; who else has a legal interest in the property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners own the freehold of London house, 8 Barton street, and there are no other legal interests in the property.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the report of the efficiency scrutiny of the Public Record Office has been completed and when it is expected to be published.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has received the report of the efficiency scrutiny of the Public Record Office. The report is being published today and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The scrutiny was set up in August 1990 to look at the functions, management and organisation of the Public Record Office, to examine the services it provides and to make proposals on its future status. The Lord Chancellor is most concerned to ensure that the priceless national asset of the records held by the Public Record Office is maintained efficiently and that the best possible quality of service is provided to those who wish to use them.

  The scrutiny team has produced a wide-ranging report and the Lord Chancellor will be considering the detailed recommendations that it contains. He accepts the broad thrust of the report and agrees with the scrutiny team's conclusion that the Public Record Office should become an executive agency under the Government's "next steps" programme. Officials of the Public Record Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department will be drawing up an action plan for the transition to agency status and associated management changes.

TRANSPORT

  Shipping Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what records are kept by his Department of the number of shipping accidents there have been in the coastal waters of the United Kingdom, involving(a) collisions, (b) groundings and (c) sinkings; how far the records go back; and what is the date of the latest records available.
  182
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The records kept show the numbers of collisions and groundings for each year for United Kingdom merchant vessels over 100 gross tons and United Kingdom fishing vessels, on a worldwide basis, back to 1972. They also show individual merchant and fishing vessels lost from any cause in each year.

  The information for the years 1972–88 is available in the Department's publication "Casualties to Vessels and Accidents to Men". This publication was discontinued with the setting up of the marine accident investigation branch (MAIB) in July 1989. For 1989—the latest year for which figures are currently available—the information is contained in the MAIB publication "Review for 1989"

  The figures for the past 10 years are as follows:

  Year

  Collisions and contacts

  Strandings and Groundings

  Losses (all causes)

  Merchant vessels

  1980

  153

  49

  8

  1981

  125

  45

  11

  1982

  154

  44

  4

  1983

  107

  25

  5

  1984

  91

  35

  5

  1985

  69

  28

  6

  1986

  55

  21

  4

  1987

  46

  16

  5

  1988

  56

  22

  6

  1989

  62

  28

  3

  Fishing vessels

  1980

  23

  26

  39

  1981

  20

  25

  52

  1982

  38

  29

  50

  1983

  26

  33

  42

  1984

  15

  36

  41

  1985

  22

  32

  40

  1986

  21

  33

  19

  1987

  13

  40

  14

  1988

  19

  55

  22

  1989

  46

  51

  22

  Oil Tankers
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the environmental risks associated with oil tankers using the route through the Minches, as opposed to the recommended deep water route west of the Western Isles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) on 14 November, columns 139–40.

  Since the deep water route was implemented in October 1987 I have received a number of representations from hon. Members, environmental organisations and members of the public, all expressing concern about the use of the Minches by oil tankers.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the annual figures for the number of laden oil tankers which sailed through the deep water route west of the Western Isles in a southerly direction for each of the past 10 years and the amount of oil carried;

  (2) what are the annual figures for the number of laden oil tankers which sailed through the Minches in a southerly direction for each of the past 10 years and the amount of oil carried.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available.
  183
  My Department commissioned a survey of southbound traffic in the two routes in September and October 1989. The survey ran for 21 days and nights, excluding three interruptions by bad weather which forced the survey vessels to seek shelter for a total of six days. During the survey period a total of 25 laden oil tankers, 16 of which were over 10,000 grt, proceeded south through the Minches compared with four laden tankers, all over 10,000 grt, which proceeded south through the deep water route. Sea conditions were such as to render use of the deep water route an impractical alternative in the opinion of many of the masters involved.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he intends that cost-benefit analysis should be used in considering any proposals from ScotRail to electrify the Edinburgh-Glasgow, via Falkirk, and the Edinburgh-Dunblane-Glasgow railway lines; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) what assurances have been given that the social benefits of electrification will be taken into account in considering proposals to electrify the Edinburgh-Glasgow, via Falkirk, and Edinburgh-Dunblane-Glasgow railway lines;

  (3) what criteria will be used to assess any proposals to electrify the railway line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the then Secretary of State, set out the criteria for rail investment in his letter of 19 December 1989 to the then chairman of the British Railways Board, which set the board's objectives for the period 1990–91 to 1992–93. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

  Speedlink
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total value of moneys paid out under section 8 of the Transport Act 1974 to assist in the provision of Speedlink rail freight services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1975 grants of £69 million (cash) have been awarded under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974. Around £10 million assisted the provision of rail facilities serviced by the Speedlink network representing less than 10 per cent. of the total grant-aided traffic. These figures include a number of schemes no longer subject to the conditions of grant which normally apply for 10 years and others which have ceased operation at some time during the period.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific measures his Department has taken to promote energy efficiency; what further measures his Department intends to take to promote energy efficiency; and by what amount and what percentage of its total energy bill his Department's energy bill has been reduced over the past year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department of Transport monitors energy consumption and undertakes detailed energy efficiency surveys in its major buildings. These 184
  activities have, for example, produced improvements in air conditioning plant and have led to the introduction of new building management systems and to the installation of new lighting systems. New opportunities continue to be sought and implemented.

  In 1989–90, the last full year for which data are available, the energy bill of the Department was reduced by about £120,000, 5 per cent. compared with the previous year.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 606, if he will outline the programme of monitoring for the pilot red route scheme being undertaken by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the effects so far of the routes' introduction.

  Mr. Chope
  Monitoring will cover safety, public transport performance, vehicle flow counts, parking surveys, shopping activity, pedestrian movement, journey times, enforcement data, loading activity and the use of rat runs.

  Present indications are that traffic, including buses, is flowing more freely and that there is less illegal parking, but it is too soon to reach firm conclusions.

WALES

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what expenditure has been incurred by his Department in ensuring slaughterhouses in Wales meet EC standards.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No special financial assistance is provided by my Department to ensure slaughterhouses in Wales meet EC standards. The Department's veterinary staff are available to provide advice on these standards.

  Green Belts
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the establishment of green belts in Wales and in Cardiff, North in particular.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This matter is being considered as part of the current exercise to review the Department's existing strategic planning guidance. The Assembly of Welsh Counties has accepted the invitation to take forward that review in consultation with the Council of Welsh Districts and other interested bodies. To launch the debate on green belts, my right hon. Friend has convened and will address a conference at the Welsh Office on 28 January 1991.

  Council for the Protection of Rural Wales
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the report of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales entitled "How Green Was My Valley"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has read the report with interest. Some of its central concerns will be considered at the green belts conference in the Welsh Office, on 28 January 1991, when the CPRW will present a paper.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many job vacancies there are for(a) machine operators, (b) catering staff, (c) sales distribution staff, (d) cleaning staff and (e) clerical employees in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Total vacancies unfilled—October 1990 (latest)

  Vacancy

  Number

  Machine Operator (Engineering)—skilled

  60

  Machine Operator (Engineering)—unskilled

  6

  Catering

  1,907

  Selling—Distribution

  1,312

  Cleaning and Personal Services

  1,944

  Clerical and Machine Operators

  1,367

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), on 14 January,Official Report, column 433, if he will now set out his proposed timetable for (a) the submission of the application for Pembrokeshire district health authority to become a trust, (b) the consultation process on the application and (c) his decision on the application.

  Total visitors admitted to, and total passengers refused leave to enter and removed from, the United Kingdom for selected nationalities, 1990

  Nationality

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  Jamaica

  Total visitors admitted1

  600

  800

  1,000

  1,200

  1,500

  2,300

  3,100

  2,300

  1,600

  1,400

  Total passengers refused leave to enter and removed

  50

  52

  58

  42

  48

  50

  52

  36

  47

  60

  Barbados

  Total visitors admitted1

  100

  100

  200

  300

  400

  800

  1,000

  900

  600

  300

  Total passengers refused leave to enter and removed

  2

  1

  3

  3

  4

  3

  2

  3

  3

  5

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Total visitors admitted1

  300

  300

  500

  600

  700

  1,300

  1,700

  1,200

  1,000

  800

  Total passengers refused leave to enter and removed

  11

  11

  10

  9

  11

  11

  10

  10

  17

  13

  Guyana

  Total visitors admitted1

  100

  200

  200

  200

  200

  400

  700

  500

  400

  200

  Total passengers refused leave to enter and removed

  6

  3

  6

  3

  4

  4

  5

  1

  2

  10

  1 Provisional figures for ordinary and business visitors.

  Election Returning Officers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether for the 1987 general election any chief executive of a local authority(a) refused appointment as an acting returning officer or (b) took unpaid leave from their authority in order to carry out the function of an acting returning officer.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Chief executives of local authorities in England and Wales who are acting retuning officers are not directly appointed to that office: they have a statutory responsibility to carry out the duties of acting returning officers by virtue of the fact that they are electoral registration officers appointed by a district or London borough council. We are not aware of any chief executive who took unpaid leave in order to carry out the duties of acting returning officer at the last general election.
  186
  Mr. David Hunt
  If Pembrokeshire district health authority decides to submit a formal application it will be subject to a statutory consultation period of three months after which I would hope to issue an early decision.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the amount of money spent in Wales during 1990 on the set-aside scheme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A total of £231,137 was paid out in Wales during 1990.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the number of people admitted as visitors and the number of people refused entry and returned abroad by the immigration authorities at United Kingdom ports of entry for each month in 1990 who were nationals of(a) Jamaica, (b) Barbados, (c) Trinidad and Tobago and (d) Guyana.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table.

  Prison Visits
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are limited to closed visits.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not recorded centrally and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any provision within the prison system for unsupervised visits to take place.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under standing order 5, a copy of which is in the Library, there is no provision within the prison system for any visits to take place out of the sight of prison staff.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) at which prison department establishments visits are normally restricted to 30 minutes' duration;
  187
  (2) which prison department establishments allow only one visit every four weeks.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Convicted prisoners are normally able to receive at least two visits every four weeks, and sometimes more, at all establishments except Brixton, Durham, Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Shrewsbury and Swansea.

  Visits normally last at least one hour, and frequently longer, at all establishments except Durham, Leeds, Liverpool and Wandsworth.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the annual expenditure on assisted visits each year since 1986–87; and what is the estimated annual expenditure in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The annual expenditure on the payment of claims made under the assisted prison visits scheme in the past four years has been as follows:

  £

  1986–87

  905,628

  1987–88

  793,407

  1988–89

  1,332,598

  1989–90

  1,491,204

  The scheme is not cash limited and all valid claims are met in full. It is therefore possible to estimate only annual expenditure in 1990–91. It appears likely that end-of-year expenditure will be around £1,650,000.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what special circumstances can prisoners be denied open visits.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Standing order 5, a copy of which is in the Library, stipulates that visits to prisoners should take place in open visiting rooms unless security or control considerations require that a special or closed visiting room or a closed visiting box should be used. This may be considered necessary in individual cases in order to prevent, for example, the smuggling of drugs.

  Wormwood Scrubs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the amount of money spent on A wing of Wormwood Scrubs prison, London, over the last five years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of £811,000 has been spent on building work in A hall at Wormwood Scrubs prison over the last five years.

  Prisoners' Letters
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to stop the censorship of prisoners' letters in prisons in England and Wales, except where prisoner security is necessary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In 1986, routine censorship of prisoners' correspondence in category D prison establishments was abolished. Since 1988 only a random 5 per cent. sample of incoming and outgoing letters are routinely read in category C and equivalent female and young offender establishments. During 1990, a trial took place to test the 188
  reduction of censorship to a 5 per cent. sample in selected category B—non-dispersal—establishments. We are currently studying the results of that trial.

  Warwickshire Police
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to meet the chief constable of Warwickshire to discuss the standard spending assessment for the police service in Warwickshire.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Prisoner Statistics
  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were in categories A, B, C and D, respectively, on the most recent available date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest information readily available centrally is given in the table.

  Population1 of adult male sentenced prisoners in local and training prisons in England and Wales on 30 September 1990: by security category of prisoner

  Number

  A2

  431

  B

  5,240

  C

  13,866

  D

  5,135

  Not recorded

  3,064

  Total population

  27,736

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Including prisoners provisionally placed in Category A.

  Fire Service, Warwickshire
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the chief fire officer of Warwickshire to discuss the standard spending assessment for the county's fire service.

  Mr. John Patten
  Representatives of Warwickshire county council have had a number of opportunities to discuss their standard spending assessments with Ministers at the Department of the Environment. We will consider carefully any request from the Warwickshire fire authority for a meeting to discuss standards of fire cover. The chief fire officer met Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services on 17 December to discuss those standards.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the South Yorkshire police force area how many(a) children and (b) adults are known to have gone missing for each of the last five years he has records; and how many were subsequently traced.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The following annual figures are given in relation to the total number of missing persons reports received in the South Yorkshire police force area for the years 1986–1990. Children and adults are not categorised separately, nor do the figures take account of those individuals who regularly leave their homes and may be
  189
  reported missing several times a year. Separate records are maintained of children and adults who are still missing at the end of each year.

  Year

  Total number of missing persons reports

  Outstanding at end of year

  Children

  Adults

  1986

  3,990

  16

  4

  1987

  3,908

  32

  5

  1988

  3,420

  13

  4

  1989

  4,281

  14

  3

  1990

  4,740

  27

  7

  Home Security
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many elderly people have so far benefited from the provision of home security and alarm systems under the safer cities and other projects(a) in London and (b) in the London borough of Wandsworth.

  Mr. John Patten
  Four safer cities projects are based in London: at Islington, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. Twenty-two safer cities grants, worth £209,000, have been approved for agencies and organisations in those areas so that they can provide better home security or alarm systems to elderly people. The estimated number of beneficiaries is 3,500 elderly people, including 400 in the London borough of Wandsworth.

  Iraqi Nationals
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders are in force against Iraqi nationals; and how many are held in custody at present.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on 2 August, notices of intention to make deportation orders have been served on 128 Iraqi nationals. Deportation orders have been made against three of these Iraqi nationals. As of 22 January 1991, a total of 61 Iraqi nationals are detained pending their appearance before the advisory panel established under paragraph 157 of the immigration rules—HC 251—or consideration of other representations. Two further Iraqi nationals, who are military officers, are being detained as prisoners of war.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi nationals are currently in the United Kingdom by virtue of(a) permanent residence, (b) student, (c) exceptional leave to remain and (d) asylum application.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The revised estimate from the latest labour force surveys and immigration control data is that some 7,000 Iraqis are usually resident in the United Kingdom, including students. In addition, some 1,300 Iraqis have been granted exceptional leave to remain and around 1,600 have applications outstanding for asylum.

  Adoption
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of children admitted into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years, for the purpose of adoption, without the necessary entry clearance; and if he will make a statement.
  190
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available. Statistics collected on passenger admissions do not separately identify children who come to the United Kingdom for adoption.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Housing
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of subsidies to council housing as a percentage of gross domestic product in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Yeo
  Housing and rent rebate subsidies from Government and rate fund contributions from local authorities to council housing in Great Britain between 1990–91 and 1989–90 are:

  Year

  £ billion

  GDP Per cent·

  1980–81

  2·5

  1·0

  1981–82

  2·1

  0·8

  1982–83

  2·1

  0·7

  1983–84

  2·8

  0·9

  1984–85

  3·1

  0·9

  1985–86

  3·2

  0·9

  1986–87

  3·4

  0·9

  1987–88

  3·5

  0·8

  1988–89

  3·4

  0·7

  1989–90

  3·8

  0·7

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by local authority the percentage of uncollected(a) community charge and (b) uniform business rates outstanding for the latest date for which he has figures.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 7 December 1990,Official Report, column 220, if he will publish in the Official Report his letter of 19 December 1990 to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information contained in my letter of 19 December 1990 is now out of date. The latest position with regulations on local government finance still to be made is as follows:

  Local Government Finance

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    Statutory Instruments (all subject to the negative resolution procedure) to be laid by 31 March 1991.
    The Community Charge

    1. Introduction of community charge reduction scheme.

    2. Form of the community charge bill and content of rate demand notice for 1991–92.

    3. Content of community charge bill and of rate demand notice for the City of London for 1991–92.

    4. Miscellaneous administrative matters—billing on change of address, attachment of earnings orders, costs of summonses, notification of entry.

    5. Revised rules for calculation of relevant population.

    6. Amendment to increase the amounts of financial loss and travel and subsistence allowance payable to VCCT members.

    Rating

    1. Miscellaneous amendments to the Collection and Enforcement (Local Lists) Regulations.

    2. Miscellaneous amendments to the Collection and Enforcement (Central Lists) Regulations.

    3. Amendments of the domestic/non-domestic boundary in respect of bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

    4. Valuation of non-domestic property in former enterprise zones.

    5. City of London minimum and maximum rating multipliers for 1991–92.

    6. Amendments to regulations on valuation of caravan sites consequent on Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill.

    7. Amendment of regulations on payment of interest to provide for cases where successive payments are made in respect of the same period.

    8. Closedown of precept and rate rules under old rating system.

    9. Further consequential amendments and repeals.

    10. Regulations on definition of hereditament used for electricity generation.

    Capital Finance

    1. Regulations to set rate of discount used in calculating the cost of credit arrangements.

    2. Miscellaneous amendments to the capital finance regulations.

    3. Regulations to apply the new system, with modifications, to the Lea Vally regional park authority.

    4. Regulations to enable local authorities to issue sterling commercial paper and medium-term notes.

    5. Regulations to apply to new system to parish and community councils.

    6. Miscellaneous amendments to the list of approved investments.

    7. Regulations to apply part VII of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to the City of London and the South Yorkshire and London pension authorities.

    8. Consequential amendments and repeals.

    Order subject to positive resolution to be laid by 31 March 1991.
    Rating

    1. Technical amendments to Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1989 and Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) Order 1989.

    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for the Doncaster local authority area(a) the number of individuals who are liable to pay the personal community charge, (b) the number of people who are liable to pay the standard community charge and (c) the number of premises liable for the uniform business rate.

    Mr. Key
    The information reported by the local authority is as follows.

    (a) By 31 December 1990, a total of 224,102 people were liable to make a payment in respect of a personal community charge.

    (b) There were 3,232 properties liable to a standard community charge on 1 June 1990, excluding those with a multiplier of zero.

    No information is available on the number of premises liable for the uniform business rate. There were 7,086 hereditaments on the authority's rating list on 31 December 1990.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the programme he intends to follow in providing additional finances to(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) voluntary
  192
  bodies, in each of the four district areas in south Yorkshire, in (i) the present financial year, (ii) the 1991–92 financial year and (iii) subsequent financial years in order to ensure adequate availability of appropriate housing to match the requirements of his Department's programme for the implementation of care in the community.

  Mr. Yeo
  We hope to make an announcement shortly about the regional distribution of the Housing Corporation's 1991–92 approved development programme. The distribution of resources within its regions is a matter for the corporation.

  Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield all receive allocations of urban programme resources before the start of each financial year for expenditure on projects targeting deprived inner-city areas and disadvantaged minorities in them. Mainstream housing provision is not an appropriate objective of the urban programme, although expenditure on support for housing workers in the voluntary sector and hostel bed spaces may be.

  Any additional burden on services which are supported through revenue support grant will be reflected in future standard spending assessments. This support is unlikely to be hypothecated.

  Any additional demands for housing resulting from the implementation of care in the community will be taken into account in future public expenditure surveys and in the distribution of resources for housing capital expenditure to individual local authorities. No account has been taken for 1990–91 or 1991–92.

  Warwickshire County Council
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what calculations underlay his assessment that Warwickshire county council would earn interest of £6·7 million, as set out in the standard spending assessment calculation for 1991.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) yesterday.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether persons refused severance allowances by the Property Services Agency in accordance with circular SWOP3/91 will still have the same conditions of service entitlement should they later be made redundant by the successor employer, a Government-owned company.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government are committed to ensuring that any staff who are transferred out of the civil service either into a Government-owned company—GOCO—or into a privately owned company will enjoy as far as possible redundancy compensation provisions identical to those they have at present.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether persons refused severance payment by the Property Services Agency under the terms of circular SW0P3/91 will be given an explanation for such refusals.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes.

  Housing, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each of the last 10 years, in London(a) the number of local authority dwellings built, (b) the number sold, (c) the number built by housing associations, (d) the number of homeless persons arid (e) his estimate of the number sleeping on the streets.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest available information about the numbers of dwellings built by London boroughs and by housing associations in London can be found in tables 1·1 to 1·10 inclusive of "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas 1980–1989", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Tables of council house sales showing year-by-year sales for each local authority are regularly placed in the Library. A table showing sales to September 1990 will be placed in the Library shortly.

  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. The numbers of households accepted and found accommodation are reported quarterly to the Department. Estimates for London for the years 1980–1989 are set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of households accepted and found accommodation

  1980

  17,480

  1981

  18,470

  1982

  21,110

  1983

  24,050

  1984

  25,180

  1985

  27,390

  1986

  29,740

  1987

  29,710

  1988

  29,320

  1989

  33,160

  Having consulted front-line voluntary organisations, my Department estimates that some 2,000 or 3,000 people sleep on the streets in London. A count of persons sleeping rough is to be carried out as part of the 1991 population census.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a report has been sent to the Commission as required under article 16 of Council directive 78/659/EEC on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life.

  Mr. Trippier
  A report covering monitoring in 1989 has been submitted to the Commission recently and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Private Water Supplies
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for regulations in respect of private water supplies.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have issued today a consultation paper seeking views on proposals for regulations dealing 194
  with the duties and functions of local authorities in respect of private water supplies. This has been published jointly by my Department, the Scottish Office Environment Department and the Welsh Office. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The consultation paper proposes that regulations should specify the information that local authorities are able to obtain in respect of private supplies in their areas and should require local authorities to prepare and maintain a register of such supplies. Proposals are made about the different classes into which private supplies should be allocated, the parameters for which each class of supply should be monitored, and the frequencies at which local authorities should carry out sampling and analysis in order to determine whether supplies comply with the requirements of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 and the parallel Scottish regulations. The paper puts forward proposals for maximum charges that local authorities would be able to make for carrying out sampling and analysis. It is intended that regulations should come into effect on 1 July 1991 and that local authorities should begin to monitor private supplies from 1 October 1991.

  Reserve Forces
  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to protect the pensions of local government employees who are called up for service as reservists during the present crisis.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has today gone out to consultation on amendments to the local government superannuation scheme designed to preserve full superannuation rights for any local government employee serving as a reservist. They would apply retrospectively with effect from 17 December 1990, the date of the order authorising the call-out of reserves.

  If, in any case, an authority declines to make good any shortfall between service and civilian salary, the regulations will provide for the cost of both the employee's and the employer's contribution to be met by the authority. I understand, however, that authorities are in the main indicating their readiness to make good any shortfall in salary and I hope that all will conclude that they should do so.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the level of Government grant to the British Waterways Board for each year since 1979 at current prices; and what is the planned level of grant for future years.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: The table shows in current prices the Government's grant 1:0 the BWB in the years 1978–79 to 1990–91, together with the board's external financing limit—EFL—which covers grant and borrowing from the national loans fund, for the same period.
  195

  Grant

  EFL

  Cash £

  1990–91 prices £

  Cash £

  1990–91 prices £

  1978–79

  23·0

  58·1

  26·0

  65·7

  1979–80

  22·8

  49·4

  25·7

  55·7

  1980–81

  25·6

  46·9

  30·0

  54·9

  1981–82

  28·4

  47·4

  31·6

  52·7

  1982–83

  37·6

  58·6

  39·3

  61·2

  1983–84

  39·8

  59·3

  40·8

  60·8

  1984–85

  41·8

  59·3

  42·8

  60·7

  1985–86

  43·5

  58·5

  44·1

  59·3

  1986–87

  43·9

  57·1

  44·8

  58·2

  1987–88

  44·0

  542

  45·0

  55·5

  1988–89

  45·9

  52·7

  44·9

  51·6

  1989–90

  48·1

  52·0

  46·5

  50·2

  1990–91

  49·3

  49·3

  49·4

  49·4

  As a result of the latest public expenditure round, the BWB's EFL, which is expected to be the same as grant for 1991–92, will be £48·7 million, with guideline figures of £46·9 milllion and £45·3 milion for the following two years.

  Minerals Act 1981
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to go to full public consultation on the review of the Minerals Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 21 January 1991]: The review of the Minerals Act 1981, announced in "Our Common Inheritance", is already under way. The issues are complex and require careful consideration. The review is expected to take up to 18 months. Any proposals for change arising from the review will be the subject of full public consultation thereafter, in the normal way.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table showing the expenditure on each inner city task force and city action team in 1989–90, including both the cost of running the unit concerned and the funds disbursed by the unit and including separately the cost of central support to task forces and city action teams.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: The task forces are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Responsibility for the Government's city action teams transferred to the Department of the Environment in December 1989. Task force and city action team expenditure in 1989–90 was as follows:

  Task forces

  Running costs £'000 estimated

  Funds disbursed £'000

  East Birmingham

  129

  959

  Handsworth

  312

  Wolverhampton

  1,270

  Leeds

  112

  1,212

  Middlesbrough

  78

  980

  Coventry

  71

  879

  Doncaster

  126

  1,619

  Hartlepool

  104

  941

  Nottingham

  162

  998

  Leicester

  982

  Bradford

  49

  130

  196

  Task forces

  Running costs £'000 estimated

  Funds disbursed £'000

  Bristol

  135

  921

  Manchester

  113

  997

  North Kensington

  133

  502

  North Peckham

  124

  766

  Rochdale

  153

  909

  Preston

  488

  Spitalfields

  139

  859

  Deptford

  30

  48

  Granby/Toxteth

  65

  280

  Total

  1,723

  16,052

  City action teams

  Cleveland Coordinating Team

  69

  648

  Liverpool

  176

  1,121

  London

  158

  874

  Manchester

  100

  473

  Birmingham

  100

  570

  Newcastle

  190

  1,134

  Nottingham/Leicester/Derby

  129

  719

  Leeds/Bradford

  109

  661

  Total

  1,031

  6,200

  The combined cost of central support by both DoE and DTI to the city action teams and task forces in 1989–90 was approximately £716,000. In addition, £1,685,000 was spent centrally on projects to support the work of the CATs and task forces, including research, consultancy and projects by national organisations which operated in most areas.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Unemployed People (Education)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to extend the life of his Department's REPLAN programme of education for the adult unemployed for at least a further year beyond October 1991.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now make an announcement on the future of REPLAN.

  Mr. Eggar
  The REPLAN programme in England and Wales has been evaluated by the National Foundation for Educational Research, and I have today placed a copy of its report in the Library. Among its main findings were that REPLAN had been successful in raising the awareness of local education authorities and education providers to the needs of the adult unemployed and that as a result provision had improved and participation increased.

  It is now for the adult education providers and the LEAs to continue to develop provision for the adult unemployed, drawing on the lessons learnt under the REPLAN programme. We look to them to work particularly closely with the training and enterprise councils which are responsible for delivering the major training programmes for the adult unemployed.

  The REPLAN programme will have largely fulfilled the purpose for which it was established when its current term is completed next October, and it is not the intention therefore of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State

  197
  for Education and Science and for Wales to extend it for a further term. Neither do we believe that there is a need for a successor programme of general promotion and support to the providers of education and training for the adult unemployed.

  We will however take specific action to address specific problems and my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales are today launching a new initiative to improve and increase the provision of adult literacy and basic skills training.

  This new initiative will be targeted at unemployed people and at those in work who cannot progress without improved basic skills. It will be overseen by the adult literacy and basic skills unit and will encourage LEAs and TECs to work together to improve basic skills provision in their areas.

  The three Departments are making available nearly £3 million over the three years 1991–92 to 1993–94. We expect to fund a pilot programme of some 30 local development initiatives worked up by LEAs and TECs.

  The initiatives will be based on an examination of needs and of existing provision in the area. It will be for LEAs and TECs to decide what to propose, but we would expect to see such developments as "compacts" which would prepare people for specific employment; basic skills training in the workplace; and supported self-study and open learning. The lessons learnt from the pilot will be disseminated nationally to assist the development of similar activity in other areas.

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

  Mr. Fallon
  Lancashire spent £320 per nursery and primary pupil in 1978–79 and £985 in 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available. It spent £495 per secondary pupil in 1978–79 and £1,620 in 1988–89. At 1988–89 prices those figures are £700 and £985 respectively for nursery and primary schools, and £1,085 and £1,620 respectively for secondary schools.

  Loan Sanctions
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he used to determine to grant(a) the London borough of Greenwich and (b) all neighbouring boroughs loan sanction for education capital projects; and what the level is in (i) Greenwich and (ii) each neighbouring borough.

  Mr. Fallon
  The criteria for all LEAs in England were set out in the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 17 December 1990,Official Report, columns 41–50.

  In-service Training
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to abolish the five in-service training days for teachers which were added to the second year in 1987.
  198
  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have no plans to change the provisions in the school teachers' pay and conditions document with regard to non-contact days for in-service training and other activities. These require teachers to be available for work for 195 days in any year, of which 190 days shall be days on which they may be required to teach pupils.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers in(a) England and (b) Wales have taken early retirement in each of the years since 1979 on grounds of (i) redundancy/interests of efficiency and (ii) health.

  Mr. Fallon
  Separate figures in respect of ill-health retirements from(a) England and (b) Wales are riot readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information relating to premature retirement figures, together with the total number of ill-health retirements, is as follows:

  Financial year

  Interests of efficiency

  Redundancy

  Total

  England

  1979–80

  2,106

  1,106

  3,122

  1980–81

  4,092

  1,753

  5,845

  1981–82

  5,391

  2,796

  8,187

  1982–83

  6,165

  2,492

  8,657

  1983–84

  5,839

  2,769

  8,608

  1984–85

  6,682

  3,129

  9,811

  1985–86

  6,776

  2,700

  9,476

  1986–87

  6,547

  1,860

  8,407

  1987–88

  5,591

  1,460

  7,051

  1988–89

  8,357

  3,222

  11,579

  1989–90

  8,947

  2,595

  11,542

  Wales

  1979–80

  336

  20

  356

  1980–81

  456

  40

  496

  1981–82

  754

  62

  816

  1982–83

  698

  94

  792

  1983–84

  610

  34

  644

  1984–85

  830

  34

  864

  1985–86

  677

  83

  760

  1986–87

  593

  98

  691

  1987–88

  455

  47

  5–2

  1988–89

  614

  167

  781

  1989–90

  686

  80

  766

  Ill-health retirements

  England and Wales

  Financial year

  Number

  1979–80

  1,617

  1980–81

  1,449

  1981–82

  1,582

  1982–83

  1,910

  1983–84

  2,170

  1984–85

  2,447

  1985–86

  2,698

  1986–87

  2,736

  1987–88

  2,551

  1988–89

  3,412

  1989–90

  4,123

  Higher Education
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report, 16 January 1991, column 506, if he will place in the Library the report, "International Comparisons and Higher Education."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A copy of the report "International Comparisons of Higher Education" has been placed in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table in the Official Report listing the capital allocations for each grant-maintained

  School

  Former maintaining LEA

  Pupil number January 1990

  Named capital allocations

  For projects beginning in 1990–91 (£ thousands)1

  For projects beginning in 1991–92 (£ thousands)2

  Adams' Grammar School

  Shropshire

  445

  —

  21

  Audenshaw High School

  Tameside

  714

  575

  225

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  Lancashire

  717

  713

  —

  Bankfield High School

  Cheshire

  428

  480

  —

  Baverstock GM School

  Birmingham

  1,037

  275

  —

  Beechen Cliff School

  Avon

  774

  480

  320

  Bishopshalt School

  Hillingdon

  917

  —

  206

  Bournemouth Grammar School

  Dorset

  869

  —

  300

  Bridgewater Hall School

  Buckinghamshire

  1,155

  —

  65

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  Bromley

  942

  —

  228

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  Kensington

  614

  219

  —

  Carre's Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  380

  —

  630

  Castle Hall GM School

  Kirklees

  394

  11

  105

  Claremont High School

  Brent

  881

  328

  120

  Colyton

  Devon

  421

  950

  —

  Ecclesbourne School

  Derbyshire

  1,223

  —

  400

  Francis Bacon School

  Hertfordshire

  466

  —

  105

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  Birmingham

  777

  —

  953

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  Kirklees

  584

  198

  252

  Hendon School

  Barnet

  805

  180

  200

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  Lancashire

  886

  155

  London Nautical School

  Southwark

  398

  100

  50

  London Oratory School

  Hammersmith

  1,184

  151

  216

  Long Field High School

  Leicestershire

  352

  236

  Netherthorpe School

  Derbyshire

  571

  65

  Old Swinford Hospital

  Dudley

  525

  35

  500

  Pate's Grammar School

  Gloucestershire

  1,010

  1,500

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys

  Barnet

  1,036

  90

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  329

  100

  503

  Queensbury School

  Bedfordshire

  641

  57

  Ribston Hall High School

  Gloucestershire

  417

  295

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  Liverpool

  1,012

  32

  200

  Skegness Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  539

  92

  63

  Small Heath School

  Birmingham

  780

  50

  105

  Southfield School for Girls

  Northamptonshire

  579

  650

  Southlands School

  Berkshire

  529

  46

  113

  St. James' CE School

  Bolton

  655

  650

  The Grammar School for Girls, Wilmington

  Kent

  415

  44

  45

  The Kings School

  Lincolnshire

  762

  128

  Watford Boys Grammar School

  Hertfordshire

  1,028

  80

  Wilson's School

  Sutton

  753

  200

  Totals

  28,944

  6,699

  8,391

  1 Financial Year.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the changes in financial arrangements when a school obtains grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The principal changes when a school becomes grant-maintained are:
  200
  school for 1990–91 and 1991–92, with the number of pupils on the roll of each school and the name of the local education authority in which it is situated with totals.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table lists the total value of the allocations for named capital projects in grant-maintained schools to begin in the two years. Each grant-maintained school is eligible to claim an amount of capital grant calculated according to a formula which takes account of the number of pupils on roll. Schools becoming grant-maintained during the course of the financial year are also eligible to claim grant for the part year. The grant is to be used for small capital works and purchase of items of equipment. For 1990–91 the formula was £13,000 plus £6 per pupil on roll. For 1991–92 the formula will be £19,000 plus £9 per pupil on roll.

  Annual maintenance grant is paid to it by the Department and recouped as appropriate from the school's former maintaining local education authority;
  Certain specific grants are available to the school which may also apply for capital grant; and
  The school's accounting, financial control and reporting arrangements must take account of guidance from the Department.
  201
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the plans for capital grant expenditure on grant-maintained schools for the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  The planned level of capital expenditure on grant-maintained schools in 1991–92 is £10·5 million. Grant-maintained schools are receiving allocations for named capital projects with a total value of £8·4 million to begin in 1991–92. It is assumed that about £4·5 million of this sum will be spent in 1991–92.

  When schools become grant maintained we want to ensure they are set up on a sound basis. This has led, on average, to higher capital allocations for the GM sector in 1991–92 than for LEA-maintained schools.

  Of the 56 eligible schools, 28 have received an allocation for a named capital project; two have a project on a design list which will enable the school to proceed with the planning stages of the project; and nine schools which were approved for grant-maintained status towards the end of 1990 will have their capital bids considered in the next few weeks. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Priority in the allocations has been given to schools' most pressing needs, including projects related to the health and safety of pupils, and to projects concerned with the introduction of the national curriculum, especially in science and technology. Each grant-maintained school is eligible to receive a formula-based allocation to be used for small capital works and items of capital equipment. The average allocation is £25,000, which is 50 per cent. higher on average than the allocations in 1990–91. The total cost in 1991–92 for the grant-maintained schools already approved for grant-maintained status is about £1·5 million.

  The remaining £4·5 million of expenditure in 1991–92 is available to allow for expenditure arising from projects begun in 1990–91, the prospect of allocations to some of the nine schools whose bids were not requested until the latter part of January, part-year formula allocations for schools becoming grant-maintained during the 1991–92 financial year, and a contingency margin.

  The following is a list of the named capital allocations.

  Capital allocations for grant-maintained schools in 1991–92

  Named Project Allocations

  All figures are in £000s

  School

  Project

  Total named project allocation

  Adams Grammar School, Newport

  Health and Safety Removal of asbestos

  21

  Audenshaw High School

  Conversion into Design and Tech room and rewiring

  225

  Beechen Cliff School, Bath

  Technology Block

  320

  Bishopshalt School, Hillingdon

  Science Block extension

  206

  Bournemouth Grammar School

  Repairs (inc. roof repairs and rewiring)

  300

  Bridgewater Hall School, Milton Keynes

  Boiler replacement

  65

  Bullers Wood School, Chislehurst

  Refurbishment and extension of 3 labs

  228

  Carre's Grammar School, Sleaford

  Technology and Labs extension

  630

  Castle Hall Grant-

  Roof renewal

  65

  Maintained School, Mirfield

  Concrete frame repairs

  40

  105

  202

  School

  Project

  Total named project allocation

  Chalvedon School, Basildon

  Bid still to be considered

  Claremont High School,

  Technology rooms

  100

  Kenton

  Health and Safety

  20

  120

  Crossley Heath, Halifax

  Bid still to be considered

  Ecclesbourne School, Duffield

  Repairs (inc. re-roofing and rewiring)

  400

  Francis Bacon School, St. Albans

  Modern Languages classrooms

  105

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys, Birmingham

  Science Block

  953

  Hardley Secondary School, Southampton

  Bid still to be considered

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  Technology refurbishment

  252

  Hendon School

  Replacement of windows (Main building)

  108

  Refurbishment of Biology Lab

  92

  200

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  Bid still to be considered

  London Nautical School

  Rewiring

  50

  London Oratory School

  Design and Technology Facilities

  216

  Long Field High School, Melton Mowbray

  Roof repairs

  236

  North Halifax High School

  Bid still to be considered

  Old Swinford Hospital, Stowbridge

  Provision of science laboratories

  500

  Pate's Grammar School, Cheltenham

  Replacement of existing accommodation

  1,500

  Queen Elizabeth's Grant-Maintained School, Alford

  Replace temporary accommodation and improve Design and Technology

  503

  St. Francis Xavier's College, Liverpool

  Repairs

  200

  Skegness Grammar School

  Modernise Kitchen and Canteen

  63

  Small Heath School

  Maths suite

  25

  Replacement of windows

  80

  105

  Southfield Schools for Girls, Kettering

  Technology block

  650

  Southlands School, Reading

  Re-roofing of Art block

  57

  corridor

  12

  senior school

  44

  113

  St. George's School, Sleaford

  Bid still to be considered

  Stratford School, Newham

  Bid still to be considered

  The Grammar School for Girls, Wilmington

  Conversion to CDT

  45

  The Maplesdon Noakes School, Maidstone

  Bid still to be considered

  Watford Boys Grammar School

  Re-roofing

  80

  Wymondham College, Norfolk

  Bid still to be considered

  203

  Projects for design stage

  School

  Project

  Indicated cost

  Guildford County School

  Library and Business Studies provision

  770

  Wolverhampton High School for Girls

  Technology Rooms

  850

  Totals for design stage

  1,620

  School Leavers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school leavers attained(a) university minimum entrance qualifications and (b) no qualifications in England and Wales in 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the academic year 1988–89, the percentage of school leavers in question in England was as shown.

  School Leavers—England

  Per cent.

  2+ A-levels

  17·4

  No qualifications

  7·9

  Total leavers (000s)

  617·71

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school leavers left at ages(a) 16 years, (b) 17 years and (c) 18 years or later in England and Wales in 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the academic year 1988–89, the percentage of school leavers in England, who left at the ages in question, was as shown.

  School Leavers—England

  Per cent.

  Aged 16

  65·2

  Aged 17

  11·5

  Aged 18 or over

  23·3

  Total leavers (000s)

  617·71

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Forestry Conservation
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total amount of aid given in each year since 1980 for forestry conservation projects.

  Mrs. Chalker
  1. The Overseas Development Administration's statistics do not show separate figures for aid expenditure on forestry conservation. Figures for bilateral aid expenditure on all types of forestry in the years 1980 to 1986, including research, training, other technical co-operation and Commonwealth Development Corporation projects, were provided in the written answer of the then Minister for Overseas Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), to the question of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 9 May 1988, at column 9. Figures showing Overseas Development Administration
  204
  is-à-vis Commonwealth Development Corporation expenditure for the years 1983 to 1987 were provided in my right hon. Friend's written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 15 May 1989, at column 21.

  2. Estimated bilateral aid expenditure on all types of forestry, except training, for the calendar years 1988 and 1989 was:

  Expenditure by

  Overseas Development Administration £'000

  Commonwealth Development Corporation £'000

  Total £'000

  1988

  7,768

  3,391

  11,159

  1989

  8,903

  2,820

  11,724

  Details of expenditure on training could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The expenditure on agreed commitments in these years is subject to the time lag effect and will show mainly in 1991 and beyond.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether participants in job interview guarantee work trials will be subject to benefit penalties if(a) they refuse to participate in a work trial employment placement, (b) they leave a work trial placement early, (c) they reject the job at the end of the work trial period, or (d) they are dismissed for whatever reason by the work trial employer; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many employers have participated in job interview guarantee work trials in each of the 20 pilot areas; how many claimants have participated in these work trials; how many claimants are currently participating in work trials; and how many participants have got full-time employment with their work trial employer;

  (3) whether participants in job interview guarantee job preparation courses will be entitled to the same conditions and terms as those claimants attending conventional restart courses; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) how many agreements have been made with employers to operate the job interview guarantee scheme in each of the 20 pilot areas; how many unemployed people have taken part in the scheme in each area; and how many participants have secured full-time employment with their sponsoring employer.

  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 these questions for reply.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what specific measures his Department has taken to promote energy efficiency; what further measures his Department intends to take to promote energy efficiency; and by what amount and what percentage of its total energy bill his Department's energy bill has been reduced over the past year.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department has introduced a range of measures to promote energy efficiency, including:
  205
  the creation of a Departmental energy strategy which inter alia commits us to achieve an energy saving of 15 per cent. over the next five years.
  the appointment of a Departmental Energy Manager to co-ordinate initiatives in energy conservation.
  the setting up of an intensive basic training programme for energy managers at regional and area level.
  the setting up of a "spend to save" budget to fund various initiatives.
  the setting up of a programme of energy surveys, targeting those buildings with the best potential for savings.
  the setting up of computerised energy monitoring and targeting systems to identify energy waste.
  guidance to staff on how to become more energy conscious.
  the relamping of buildings with energy saving lighting, particularly when a building is being refurbished.

  My Department's energy strategy will be closely monitored and other energy-saving measures will be introduced when suitable opportunities arise.

  In the financial year 1989–90, expenditure on energy rose by 3·3 per cent., which is less than the increase in energy prices in the same period. Consumption figures for this year are not available. Moreover, my Department's new and revised energy strategy was not introduced until April 1990.

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each region and for Great Britain as a whole the number and proportion of employment training leavers who obtained a vocational qualification.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following table gives the proportion of trainees leaving employment training between July 1989 and June 1990, the latest date for which information is available, who obtained a qualification or credit or who were awaiting results. Numbers of trainees achieving qualifications or credits towards qualifications are not available.
  206

  Employment training

  Proportion gaining qualifications or credits all leavers between July 1989 to June 1990

  Region

  Obtained qualification or credit

  Awaiting results

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  South East

  25

  4

  London

  18

  4

  South West

  24

  5

  West Midlands

  20

  4

  East Midlands and Eastern

  22

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  21

  4

  North West

  19

  4

  Northern

  24

  4

  Wales

  23

  4

  Scotland

  24

  5

  Great Britain

  22

  4

  Source: Respondents to the Employment Training Follow up Survey.

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people attended a Restart interview in the last six months available for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; and what were the results of those interviews broken down in the manner of the answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) of 18 December,Official Report, column 148.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what numbers of unemployed people (i) attended and (ii) refused to attend Restart training courses(a) nationally and (b) in Bolton in the last year for which figures are available.

  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 these questions for reply.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the current average tariff for bed-and-breakfast accommodation in three-star hotels in central London.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department does not have this information in respect of the star schemes operated by the AA and the RAC. However, for the English tourist board's "crown" classification and grading scheme, figures from the London tourist board indicate that the current average bed-and-breakfast tariff in central London for three-crown accommodation is £70·00 per night for two people occupying a double room with en-suite facilities.

  Factory Inspectors, Stockport
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the occasions on which factory inspectors visited Vernon Mill and Taymar Gas in Stockport during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Forth
  The following table shows the dates on which factory inspectors have visited Vernon Mill and Taymar Gas in Stockport during the past 10 years:

  VERNON MILL

  14 January 1982

  23 November 1984

  21 January 1982

  16 October 1985

  28 January 1982

  29 October 1985

  26 March 1982

  11 November 1985

  5 May 1982

  5 November 1986

  3 August 1983

  11 January 1988

  7 September 1983

  12 October 1988

  8 February 1984

  13 June 1989

  16 February 1984

  4 July 1989

  12 March 1984

  14 September 1989

  31 May 1984

  4 October 1989

  12 July 1984

  12 October 1989

  Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence

  April 1990

  Percentage with weekly earnings, excluding overtime, less than:

  £100

  £110

  £120

  £130

  £140

  £150

  £160

  £170

  £180

  £190

  £200

  (a) Women

  (i) Manual

  West Yorkshire

  17·8

  28·3

  42·8

  54·9

  63·5

  71·1

  78·2

  85·3

  88·5

  90·6

  91·9

  South Yorkshire

  18·3

  29·1

  42·9

  53·1

  61·7

  70·9

  76·0

  83·4

  88·6

  93·7

  97·1

  North Yorkshire

  19·4

  30·1

  43·7

  54·4

  62·1

  70·9

  81·6

  90·3

  93·2

  96·1

  96·1

  Humberside

  15·7

  26·9

  40·3

  53·0

  66·4

  70·1

  81·3

  86·6

  91·0

  94·0

  95·5

  (ii) Non-manual

  West Yorkshire

  3·0

  6·8

  14·4

  20·5

  28·0

  34·7

  42·5

  49·4

  53·9

  58·0

  62·8

  South Yorkshire

  4·0

  8·9

  16·0

  22·8

  29·2

  36·2

  44·1

  51·9

  57·7

  62·4

  66·9

  North Yorkshire

  5·7

  9·8

  16·8

  24·9

  31·2

  37·9

  45·3

  52·6

  58·3

  62·9

  66·4

  Humberside

  6·9

  13·3

  19·7

  26·4

  33·3

  38·9

  48·3

  53·6

  58·7

  63·5

  67·5

  (iii) All

  West Yorkshire

  6·5

  11·9

  21·1

  28·6

  36·4

  43·3

  51·0

  57·9

  62·1

  65·7

  69·7

  South Yorkshire

  7·2

  13·4

  21 9

  29·5

  36·4

  43·8

  51·1

  58·8

  64·5

  69·9

  73·6

  North Yorkshire

  8·7

  14·2

  22·7

  31·4

  37·9

  45·1

  53·2

  60·8

  65·9

  70·1

  72·9

  Humberside

  9·2

  16·9

  25·1

  33·4

  42·0

  47·2

  57·0

  62·3

  67·2

  71·5

  74·9

  (b) Men

  (i) Manual

  West Yorkshire

  2·1

  4·6

  8·3

  14·1

  19·5

  25·9

  33·8

  41·6

  50·3

  58·7

  65·5

  South Yorkshire

  1·6

  3·7

  6·9

  11·0

  15·8

  21·5

  27·4

  32·9

  39·8

  47·7

  53·9

  North Yorkshire

  3·1

  4·9

  10·0

  17·8

  25·6

  34·8

  41·0

  51·4

  57·5

  65·5

  70·4

  Humberside

  2·2

  4·9

  9·5

  14·1

  22·0

  28·6

  34·3

  42·0

  48·2

  53·3

  57·0

  (iii) Non-manual

  West Yorkshire

  1·3

  1·9

  3·0

  4·5

  5·5

  7·4

  10·2

  12·6

  15·1

  17·7

  20·7

  South Yorkshire

  0·8

  1·4

  2·3

  3·7

  5·5

  7·3

  9·1

  11·3

  13·0

  16·7

  20·1

  North Yorkshire

  1·4

  2·8

  4·7

  7·2

  9·4

  11·0

  14·9

  17·1

  19·3

  22·4

  26·2

  Humberside

  2·3

  2·9

  3·7

  5·5

  7·6

  11·1

  14·3

  17·2

  19·7

  21·1

  24·8

  208

  8 November 1989

  9 August 1990

  4 January 1990

  17 August 1990

  21 February 1990

  22 August 1990

  28 March 1990

  24 August 1990

  4 April 1990

  30 August 1990

  21 June 1990

  10 September 1990

  TAYMAR GAS

  Meadow Mill premises

  Weir Mill premises

  6 December 1984

  1 December 1981

  19 March 1985

  4 December 1981

  5 June 1985

  15 January 1982

  10 September 1985

  17 February 1982

  3 July 1986

  9 September 1982

  20 August 1986

  6 December 1984

  16 April 1987

  27 March 1985

  30 April 1987

  17 June 1985

  17 July 1987

  28 June 1985

  3 September 1987

  3 March 1987

  12 July 1988

  13 April 1987

  4 April 1990

  16 April 1987

  18 December 1990

  27 August 1987

  19 December 1990

  12 July 1988

  9 January 1991

  7 February 1989

  11 January 1991

  19 December 1990

  Earnings
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show for full-time workers the percentage earning less than £100, £110, £120, £130, £140, £150, £160, £170, £180, £190, and £200 per week, giving the information for(a) women and (b) men (i) manual, (ii) non-manual and (iii) all, both including overtime and excluding overtime, in (1) West Yorkshire, (2) South Yorkshire, (3) North Yorkshire and (4) Humberside.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available from the new earnings survey is given in the following tables.
  209

  Percentage with weekly earnings, excluding overtime, less than:

  £100

  £110

  £120

  £130

  £140

  £150

  £160

  £170

  £180

  £190

  £200

  (iii) All

  West Yorkshire

  1·7

  3·4

  6·0

  9·9

  13·4

  17·8

  23·5

  29·0

  34·9

  40·8

  46·0

  South Yorkshire

  1·3

  2·7

  5·0

  7·9

  11·4

  15·5

  19·6

  23·7

  28·4

  34·6

  39·5

  North Yorkshire

  2·4

  4·1

  7·9

  13·6

  19·2

  25·4

  30·7

  37·8

  42·4

  48·4

  52·9

  Humberside

  2·2

  4·1

  7·2

  10·8

  16·4

  21·7

  26·5

  32·3

  37·0

  40·7

  44·4

  Source: New Earnings Survey 1990.

  Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence

  April 1990

  Percentage with weekly earnings, excluding overtime, less than:

  £100

  £110

  £120

  £130

  £140

  £150

  £160

  £170

  £180

  £190

  £200

  (a) WOMEN

  (i) Manual

  West Yorkshire

  15·0

  23·6

  37·3

  47·8

  58·3

  66·7

  73·5

  80·6

  83·7

  87·1

  89·2

  South Yorkshire

  16·0

  24·0

  40·6

  50·3

  58·3

  67·4

  72·6

  80·6

  85·7

  90·3

  94·9

  North Yorkshire

  18·4

  28·2

  41·7

  51·5

  56·3

  65·0

  71·8

  81·6

  85·4

  88·3

  90·3

  Humberside

  11·2

  20·9

  35·8

  46·3

  55·2

  59·7

  71·6

  78·4

  82·1

  83·6

  88·8

  (ii) Non-manual

  West Yorkshire

  2·7

  5·9

  13·1

  19·1

  25·6

  32·2

  39·5

  47·2

  51·9

  56·2

  61·0

  South Yorkshire

  4·0

  8·4

  14·1

  21·2

  27·8

  35·7

  42·3

  49·8

  56·1

  61·1

  65·4

  North Yorkshire

  4·9

  8·9

  15·2

  23·0

  30·1

  36·6

  43·4

  50·1

  55·8

  60·7

  65·0

  Humberside

  5·6

  12·8

  18·1

  24·8

  30·9

  35·7

  43·7

  49·6

  56·3

  61·1

  64·8

  (iii) All

  West Yorkshire

  5·6

  10·1

  18·8

  25·9

  33·4

  40·4

  47·6

  55·1

  59·5

  63·5

  67·6

  South Yorkshire

  6·7

  11·8

  19·9

  27·6

  34·5

  42·7

  49·0

  56·5

  62·6

  67·5

  71·7

  North Yorkshire

  7·8

  13·1

  21·0

  29·2

  35·8

  42·8

  49·6

  57·0

  62·3

  66·7

  70·6

  Humberside

  7·1

  14·9

  22·8

  30·5

  37·3

  42·0

  51·1

  57·2

  63·1

  67·0

  71·1

  (b) MEN

  (i) Manual

  West Yorkshire

  1·5

  2·7

  5·0

  8·1

  11·4

  15·7

  20·0

  25·5

  31·0

  37·9

  43·0

  South Yorkshire

  1·1

  2·5

  4·3

  6·5

  9·2

  11·9

  15·9

  19·9

  24·4

  29·8

  34·9

  North Yorkshire

  2·7

  4·0

  8·2

  11·8

  16·9

  22·0

  25·8

  31·4

  35·8

  41·7

  47·4

  Humberside

  1·7

  3·7

  6·2

  8·2

  12·5

  16·4

  19·8

  24·5

  28·4

  32·7

  38·4

  (ii) Non-manual

  West Yorkshire

  1·2

  1·7

  2·8

  3·8

  5·1

  6·6

  9·4

  11·4

  13·3

  15·7

  18·0

  South Yorkshire

  0·8

  1·2

  1·8

  3·1

  4·2

  5·8

  8·0

  9·9

  11·5

  14·9

  17·8

  North Yorkshire

  1·4

  2·4

  3·9

  6·4

  8·6

  10·2

  13·5

  15·2

  17·7

  21·3

  24·6

  Humberside

  2·3

  2·9

  3·5

  4·5

  6·1

  8·4

  11·1

  14·1

  17·2

  19·1

  22·3

  (iii) All

  West Yorkshire

  1·4

  2·2

  4·0

  6·2

  8·6

  11·7

  15·4

  19·3

  23·3

  28·2

  32·1

  South Yorkshire

  1·0

  1·9

  3·2

  5·0

  7·1

  9·3

  12·5

  15·6

  18·9

  23·5

  27·6

  North Yorkshire

  2·2

  3·4

  6·5

  9·6

  13·6

  17·3

  20·9

  25·0

  28·6

  33·6

  38·3

  Humberside

  1·9

  3·4

  5·1

  6·7

  10·0

  13·2

  16·4

  20·5

  24·0

  27·4

  32·1

  Source: New Earnings Survey 1990.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show for part timers the number of women earning less than £2 per hour, £2·20 per hour, £2·40 per hour, £2·50 per hour, £2·80 per hour, £3 per hour, £3·20 per hour, £4 per hour, £4·50 per hour and £5 per

  Part-time females on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence

  April 1990

  Number in the sample with hourly earnings less than:

  £2·00

  £2·20

  £2·40

  £2·50

  £2·80

  £3·00

  £3·20

  £4·00

  £4·50

  £5·00

  (1) Manual

  West Yorkshire

  5

  26

  53

  70

  137

  226

  248

  370

  384

  396

  South Yorkshire

  7

  16

  26

  43

  91

  130

  100

  276

  285

  297

  North Yorkshire

  2

  6

  11

  19

  44

  63

  71

  123

  129

  130

  Humberside

  8

  12

  15

  16

  39

  101

  122

  161

  170

  175

  (2) Non-manual

  West Yorkshire

  9

  12

  17

  30

  85

  123

  161

  306

  354

  388

  South Yorkshire

  6

  8

  10

  16

  60

  77

  89

  142

  184

  200

  North Yorkshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Humberside

  3

  5

  9

  13

  44

  56

  77

  121

  135

  146

  210
  hour for (1) manual, (2) non-manual and (3) all women in (i) West Yorkshire, (ii) South Yorkshire, (iii) North Yorkshire and (iv) Humberside.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available from the new earnings survey is given in the following tables.
  211

  £2·00

  £2·20

  £2·40

  £2·50

  £2·80

  £3·00

  £3·20

  £4·00

  £4·50

  £5·00

  (3) All

  West Yorkshire

  14

  38

  70

  100

  222

  349

  409

  676

  738

  784

  South Yorkshire

  13

  24

  36

  59

  151

  207

  277

  418

  469

  497

  North Yorkshire

  2

  7

  14

  25

  68

  97

  116

  199

  222

  230

  Humberside

  11

  17

  24

  29

  83

  157

  199

  282

  305

  321

  Note: ".." denotes reliable information not available.

  Percentage with hourly earnings less than:

  £2·00

  £2·20

  £2·40

  £2·50

  £2·80

  £3·00

  £3·20

  £4·00

  £4·50

  £5·00

  (1) Manual

  West Yorkshire

  1·2

  6·4

  13·0

  17·2

  33·7

  55·5

  60·9

  90·9

  94·3

  97·3

  South Yorkshire

  2·3

  5·2

  8·5

  14·1

  29·8

  42·6

  61·6

  90·5

  93·4

  97·4

  North Yorkshire

  1·5

  4·5

  8·2

  14·2

  32·8

  47·0

  53·0

  91·8

  96·3

  97·0

  Humberside

  4·4

  6·6

  8·3

  8·8

  21·5

  55·8

  67·4

  89·0

  93·9

  96·7

  (2) Non-manual

  West Yorkshire

  1·8

  2·3

  3·3

  5·8

  16·6

  24·0

  31·4

  59·6

  69·0

  75·6

  South Yorkshire

  2·3

  3·1

  3·8

  6·1

  23·0

  29 5

  34·1

  54·4

  70·5

  76·6

  North Yorkshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Humberside

  1·7

  2·8

  5·1

  7·4

  25·0

  31·8

  43·8

  68·8

  76·7

  83 0

  (3) All

  West Yorkshire

  1·5

  4·1

  7·6

  10·9

  24·1

  37·9

  44·5

  73·5

  80·2

  85·2

  South Yorkshire

  2·3

  4·2

  6·4

  10·4

  26·7

  36·6

  48·9

  73·9

  82·9

  87·8

  North Yorkshire

  0·8

  2·8

  5·5

  9·9

  26·9

  38·3

  45·8

  78·7

  87·7

  90·9

  Humberside

  3·1

  4·8

  6·7

  8·1

  23·2

  44·0

  55·7

  79·0

  85·4

  89·9

  Note:".." denotes reliable information not available.

  Source: New Earnings Survey 1990.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show for part-time women workers (i) average gross weekly earnings, (ii) average weekly hours, total and overtime, and (iii) average gross hourly earnings for(a) manual, (b) non-manual and (c) all part-time women workers in (1) West Yorkshire, (2) South Yorkshire, (3) North Yorkshire and (4) Humberside.

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

  Part-time females on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence—April 1990

  Hours

  Average gross weekly earnings £

  Total

  Overtime

  Average gross hourly earnings £

  (a) Manual

  West Yorkshire

  58·6

  18·1

  0·6

  3·14

  South Yorkshire

  58·3

  19·2

  1·5

  3·21

  North Yorkshire

  ..

  18·6

  0·9

  3·21

  Humberside

  ..

  17·8

  1·6

  3·22

  (b) Non-manual

  West Yorkshire

  89·4

  20·6

  1·0

  4·36

  South Yorkshire

  88·0

  20·4

  1·6

  4·31

  North Yorkshire

  ..

  20·6

  0·8

  ..

  Humberside

  ..

  20·7

  1·1

  3·95

  (c)All

  West Yorkshire

  75·8

  19·5

  0·8

  3·86

  South Yorkshire

  72·6

  19·8

  1·6

  3·74

  North Yorkshire

  68·2

  19·6

  0·8

  3·58

  Humberside

  68·9

  19·2

  1·4

  3·61

  N.B. ".." denotes reliable information not available.

  Source: New Earnings Survey 1990.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last discussed with(a) the Confederation of British Industry and (b) the Trades Union Congress the special difficulties experienced by disabled people seeking work.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]:I have not discussed this subject with either organisation. However, both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress were invited by my Department to comment on the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", which was published on 29 June 1990, and on the summary paper, "Evaluation of Special Schemes for People with Disabilities", which was published on 2 November 1990.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Syria
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Syria about the human rights situation in Syria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 4 December 1990, Vol. 182, c.63.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with Amnesty International and other human rights organisations about the human rights situation in Syria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We maintain informal contact with Amnesty International and receive representations from other organisations and individuals, including hon. Members, about human rights in Syria.
  213
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on whether Syria has ceased to provide safe haven for any groups involved in the promotion of international terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received welcome assurances from the Syrian Government that Syria rejects acts of international terrorism and will take action against the perpetrators of such acts where there is convincing evidence.

  Hong Kong
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he intends to take to ensure that immigration officials in Hong Kong are following correct immigration procedures for Vietnamese applicants; and if he will increase funding to the mission of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The criteria applied by the Hong Kong immigration authorities to determine refugee status are those laid down in the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees. Their procedure follow UNHCR guidelines. The UNHCR is free to monitor these procedures as well as the appeals procedure which is to an independent refugee status review board headed by a former judge. UNHCR provides counselling and legal advice to all asylum seekers during the determination process. In addition, private lawyers are allowed access to the boat people centres to provide legal advice to individual clients.

  Although we do not directly fund the mission of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Hong Kong, we are among the major contributors to UNHCR. In 1990 we contributed £19·9 million of which some £8·5 million was for the comprehensive plan of action for Indo-Chinese refugees. We expect our contribution in 1991 to be at least as high as our contribution in 1990.

  Ammunition, Belgium
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral reply of 16 January 1991,Official Report, column 836, if he will indicate what discussions are taking place on the restrictions placed by the Belgium Government on the supply of ammunition to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During the past weeks we have put several requests to Belgium and other partners for logistic and other support for British forces in the Gulf. Details are confidential. The requests have been under discussion both bilaterally and within the Western European Union. Although the Belgian Government felt unable to meet all our requests, other allies were able to meet the shortfall. The Belgian Government have helped in other ways, notably in providing medical and air transport support. They have also deployed combat aircraft to Turkey and provided other assistance in the region. At the WEU ministerial meeting on 17 January we advised partners that we might be making further requests in due course. We would hope that any such requests would receive swift and sympathetic consideration.

  The Gulf
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government were first consulted on the timing of the allied attack on Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in regular consultation with President Bush about the possibility of needing to use force if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait at the end of the deadline. He discussed with President Bush the precise timing of the attack very shortly after the conclusion of the debate in the House on 15 January.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bregenz House, Bangor
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange for a local public inquiry to be held under article 103 of the Planning Order 1972 into the application to build premises to be known as Bregenz house on the seafront at Bangor.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. The application did not meet any of the criteria set down in the Planning Order (Northern Ireland) 1972.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to assess whether the Brownlow community trust at Craigavon is following good employment practice in keeping with the policy of the Fair Employment Commission.

  Mr. Hanley
  Brownlow community trust is not a registered concern under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989. The commission has had no dealings with the trust.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the nature of the proposed capital expenditure envisaged under the heading "Mater Hospital Vacated Spaces" in the draft review entitled "Management Content" issued by the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is the adaptation of existing accommodation to provide facilities for a gynaecological unit and a medical unit, including the upgrading of the existing sanitary annexes and ward pantries.

  The estimated cost of the works including fees and equipment is £791,000 spread over three years, with £200,000 being expended in 1991–92.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the reason for the proposed replacement of the cooling towers at Belfast city hospital; and what is the estimated cost.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is to eliminate the risk of an outbreak of Legionnaires disease, with regard to the type of towers in use, their age and the Department of Health guidance document "The Control of Legionnellae in Health Care Premises—A Code of Practice" (1988).

  The estimated cost is £700,000.
  215
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Eastern health and social services board is permitted to use the proceeds of sale of land, buildings and equipment at the Royal group of hospitals and the Mater Infirmorum.

  Mr. Hanley
  Each health and social services board is permitted to use the proceeds of sales of its surplus land, buildings and equipment for reinvestment and is free to decide where these funds should be used.

  Skilled Workers
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to how many firms in England and Wales experiencing shortages of skilled workers have transferred to or established subsidiaries in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Over the last five years, 12 companies from England and Wales have accepted financial assistance from the Industrial Development Board (IDB) to establish operations in Northern Ireland. These operations are in addition to public sector organisations, such as the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security and the Passport Office which have set up in Northern Ireland to serve clients in Great Britain.

  It is unlikely that their decisions were based entirely on the skill shortages being experienced by many companies in Great Britain, although this may have been the driving force in some instances. Certainly the Province's abundant supply of well-educated and skilled people, eager for work, is a compelling attraction; but Northern Ireland also offers an excellent infrastructure, including a state-of-the-art fibre optic telecommunication system, a lower operating cost base and a very good quality of life for managers who may be asked to transfer. It is for a combination of these reasons, plus the availability of assistance from the IDB, that Ministers remain confident that companies from Great Britain will continue to locate in Northern Ireland.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Loans
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what figures he has on the proportion of commercial property loans to equity in each of the major banks.

  Mr. Maples
  The Treasury does not have such figures for individual banks. However, aggregated figures showing shareholders' funds and exposure to particular sectors of the economy for members of the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers are published in the committee's annual "Abstract of Banking Statistics" and the monthly updates of this.

  Tobacco Tax
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on taxation on tobacco; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the taxation of tobacco products, but I cannot anticipate his Budget statement.

  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the
  216
  tax paid on a pack of 20 cigarettes in each Economic Community country as a percentage of the total price and the average price of a pack of 20 cigarettes in each country; and what the figures were five years ago.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The figures for current and 1986 taxation and price levels of a pack of 20 cigarettes in each EC country are as follows.

  Excise and VAT on 20 cigarettes in the most popular price category as at 18 January 1991

  Country

  RSP2 pence

  Total tax

  Tax as percentage RSP

  Belgium

  111

  80

  72

  Denmark

  231

  199

  86

  France

  104

  70

  67

  Germany

  145

  106

  73

  Greece

  44

  31

  70

  Ireland

  181

  133

  73

  Italy

  87

  63

  72

  Luxembourg

  79

  57

  72

  Netherlands

  104

  73

  70

  Portugal

  57

  42

  74

  Spain

  31

  18

  58

  United Kingdom

  180

  131

  73

  1 Rates of Exchange as at 16 January 1991

  2 Retail selling price

  Source: EC Excise Duty tables

  Excise Duty and VAT on 20 Cigarettes in the most popular price category as at 4 February 19861

  Country

  RSP (pence)

  Total Tax(pence)

  Tax as a percentage of RSP

  Belgium

  93

  65

  70

  Denmark

  230

  201

  87

  France

  48

  37

  77

  Germany

  132

  97

  73

  Greece

  30

  218

  60

  Ireland

  171

  126

  74

  Italy

  74

  54

  73

  Luxembourg

  73

  48

  66

  Netherlands

  101

  73

  72

  Portugal

  48

  34

  71

  Spain

  52

  28

  54

  United Kingdom

  150

  113

  75

  Source: EC Excise duty tables.

  1 Rates of Exchange as at 29 January 1986.

  2 Includes sales tax.

  Day Nurseries
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost in 1991–92 of replacing the exemption for day nurseries with zero-rating.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Nurseries are not registrable for VAT, so there is no reliable information available on the cost of replacing the current exemption with zero rating.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the trade balance with the other countries of the European Community in 1979, expressed in 1990 prices; and what it is now.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on trade with member countries of the European Community is not available at constant prices. Information for the EC as a whole is
  217
  available at current prices on the Central Statistical Office database, which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Manufactured Goods (Exports)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of exports of manufactured goods.

  Mr. Mellor
  In volume terms, exports of manufactures in the year to date—November 1990—show an increase of 9½ per cent. over the same period a year earlier.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the export performance of United Kingdom manufacturers during 1990.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the 11 months to November 1990 the volume of manufactured exports, excluding erratics, was 9½ per cent. higher than a year earlier. United Kingdom manufacturers' share of world trade is likely to have risen in 1990 for the second successive year. This share has stabilised since the early 1980s, after decades of decline.

  Departmental Relocation
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress Departments have made under the Government's relocation policy.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My predecessor informed the House on January 1990 that, in accordance with the policy announced by the then Paymaster General on 31 March 1988, Departments had already announced decisions to relocate well over 16,000 posts away from the south-east. There are no central targets or preferred locations under this policy. Departments review the location of their work systematically, with a view to finding easier labour markets and better value for money. The guidelines require Departments to consult the regional policy and territorial Departments and DOE Property Holdings about potential relocation venues, and to report progress to the Treasury in the annual public expenditure survey.

  By the end of June 1990 Departments had identified nearly 7,000 further posts for location or relocation away from the south-east, bringing the total since 1988 to nearly 23,000. More than 1,000 others have been identified for cost-effective transfer within the south-east, and some 15,000 have been reviewed but judged not suitable for relocation at this stage. Almost 13,000 are still at various stages in the review process. When these reviews are complete, over 51,000 posts in the south-east will have been subject to review—equivalent to 24 per cent. of total posts in the region; and further posts will be reviewed in the coming year.

  Three quarters of the posts identified for transfer are destined for locations within assisted or urban programme areas and at least half are expected to be filled through local recruitment. Around 6,000 posts have already been moved since the beginning of 1988, which exceeds the figure for the whole of the period 1974–79 and compares favourably with the 12,000 posts moved or created outside the south-east between 1979–1987.

  Successful relocation requires careful planning. Departments exchange experience and, where appropriate, co-ordinate action with other Departments, with some transfers between Departments for staff not wishing to
  218
  move and with good use being made of the extra flexibilities now available in the personnel management field.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his reply of 14 December 1990 to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham,Official Report, column 538, if he will estimate by how much the standard rate of personal income tax would need to be increased if (a) education and (b) education, fire and police were financed by income tax, assuming no change in the grants paid by central Government to the local authorities; and if he will also estimate savings in community charge benefit in each case.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 15 January 1991]: If local authorities spend in line with central Government's assessments in 1991–92, expenditure on education in Great Britain will be around £21 billion, expenditure on education, fire and law and order services will be around £28 billion, and total income from 'the community charge would be around £14·5 billion.

  Assuming no change were made in the level of revenue support grant and non-domestic rates paid by central Government to local authorities, the basic rate of income tax would need to increase by (a) 8½p and (b) 10p if these services were financed by income tax. However, if education, fire and law and order services were funded in line with these proposals, the extra central Government funding would more than exceed anticipated community charge income for 1991–92. The saving on community charge benefit would be around £2 billion.

  Government Telecommunications Unit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 15 January,Official Report, column 463, what direct costs to public funds there were as a result of the negotiations with Racal Data Network Ltd. from 15 February 1990 onwards; where in the public accounts those costs will be recorded; and whether he proposes to allocate additional resources to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency to continue to prepare a future Government telecommunications service.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: The costs to public funds of the Government telecommunications service—GTS—negotiations, and related telecommunications research, were some £2·4 million. These costs were borne by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency—CCTA—the five participating Departments, and the Treasury Solicitor's Department. Expenditure on the project prior to 31 March 1990 was accounted for in the appropriation accounts of CCTA—class XIX vote 13—Department of Employment—class VI vote 2—Department of Social Security—class XV vote 7—Inland Revenue—class XVIII vote 6—Her Majesty's Customs and Excise—class XVIII vote 5—Department of Finance and Personnel (Northern Ireland)—DFP vote 1—and Treasury Solicitor's Department—class X vote 9. Expenditure in the 1990–91 financial year will be accounted for in the following appropriation accounts: Her Majesty's Treasury—class XVIII vote 1—Department of Employment—class VI vote 2—

  219
  Department of Social Security—class XVI vote 7— Inland Revenue—class XVIII vote 6—Her Majesty's Customs and Excise—class XVIII vote 5—Department of Finance and Personnel (Northern Ireland)—DFP vote 1—Treasury Solicitor's Department—class X vote 9.

  There are no plans to implement an alternative GTS. As I reported to the House on 15 January, the Departments concerned in the GTS negotiations will now be considering, with the CCTA, how best to meet future telecommunications requirements.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to exempt carers of mentally handicapped people from tax on a proportion of their earnings as carers.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: Whether income tax has to be paid on payments received for caring for a mentally handicapped person will depend on the circumstances. In particular, these payments will give rise to a tax liability only if they exceed the actual costs which the recipient incurs in caring for the handicapped person.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the backdating of tax on income earned caring for mentally handicapped people.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: None.

HEALTH

  Theft
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member of Norfolk, North dated 7 December 1990,Official Report, column 217, on health service theft, fraud, and so on, what is (a) the number of cases reported to the police by Norwich health authority in each year since 1982, (b) the number of cases in which prosecutions subsequently took place and (c) the number of convictions and sentences which ensued;

  (2) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member of Norfolk, North of 7 December 1990, Official Report, column 217, on health service theft, fraud, and so on, if he will give details of cases (a) reported to police, (b) where prosecutions took place and (c) of conviction and sentence, stating the name of health authority concerned and the nature of the offence in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have written to my hon. Friend.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of operations and waiting lists for ear, nose and throat operations carried out by year since 1985 in(a) Sunderland area health authority, (b) Durham area health authority and (c) Hartlepool area health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The available information is given in the table. 1987–88 is the first year for which details of operations by specialty and by district health authority are held centrally.
  220

  Ear, Nose and Throat Operations.

  Number of operations 1987–88

  Waiting list 31 March 1988

  Percentage waiting over one year

  Hartlepool

  585

  142

  1

  Sunderland

  4,122

  842

  0

  Number of operations 1987–88

  Waiting list 31 March 1988

  Percentage waiting over one year

  Hartlepool

  553

  67

  7

  Sunderland

  4,646

  1,256

  0

  Number of operations 1987–88

  Waiting list 31 March 1988

  Percentage waiting over one year

  Hartlepool

  523

  282

  3

  Sunderland

  4,558

  1,188

  0

  Note: Durham figures are included with those of Sunderland. Sunderland provides an ENT service for Durham and South Tyneside District Health Authorities.

  Source: Operations KH08. Waiting list KH06, KH07, KHO7A.

  Nurses (Prescribing Rights)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to permit limited prescribing rights for nurses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We support the principle of nurse prescribing. Implementation is dependent on the outcome of work currently being carried out, in particular on the economic implications.

  NHS Laundries
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what technical criteria are taken into account by health authorities when appointing independent technical consultants to evaluate competitive tenders for national health service laundry services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the health authority concerned. The usual requirements are for wide experience in laundry operations, expertise in assessing the capabilities of tenderers to perform to contract requirements, and knowledge to assist the authority in selecting the most cost-effective service options.

  Hospital Meals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by(a) regional health authority and (b) area health authority the average weekly cost of providing meals for in-patients, for the latest date for which he has figures.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The health service indicators for 1988–89, which are available in the Library, include the average daily cost of meals for in-patients for regional and district health authorities—indicator CA01. These are the latest figures available.

  Disability
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received over the past year about when the Disabled Persons' (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 is likely to be fully implemented.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 13 November 1990 at column 111. Since then we have answered two parliamentary questions and one letter on this issue.

  Land Sales (Trent)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the capital expenditure of the Trent regional health authority he expects it to obtain from sales of land.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is currently forecast that Trent regional health authority's land sales will make up 21 per cent. of the region's capital spending in 1990–91.

  Incontinence
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for reviewing the quality of service and advice available to people with problems of incontinence.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department is currently considering ways in which good practice in the provision of incontinence services can be disseminated more widely throughout the country.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Computers
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects Her Majesty's Government to respond to the 1989–90 report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) about computer services for Members (HC614).

  Mr. MacGregor
  I hope to be able to find time for a debate on this important report before long.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Orders in Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the Orders in Council which have been approved in the current year.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No Orders in Council have been made in 1991.

  Privy Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the Privy Council last met; and what topics were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The last meeting of the Privy Council was on 19 December 1990. It is not the practice to disclose the proceedings at such meetings.
  222
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord Presidnet of the Council if he will list the current Privy Councillors.

  Mr. MacGregor
  An alphabetical list of Privy Councillors is published annually in "Whitaker's Almanack" and a list by precedence is published quarterly in Vacher's Parliamentary Companion. The list shown in the November 1990 edition of the latter shows all current Privy Councillors with the exception of Mr. Richard Ryder. The formalities for the appointment to the Privy Council of Mr. Alan Clark and Mrs. Angela Rumbold announced in the new year honours list will take place next month.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Glass
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to promote the British glass industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department encourages growth in all markets by promoting enterprise and by creating a climate in which all sectors of industry can flourish. There are no plans for any new initiatives specifically for the glass industry.

  Post Office
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any proposals to introduce greater competition into the Post Office.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Post Office's letter monopoly is a privilege, not a right. While we keep the options on the letter monopoly under review we have no present plans to alter the scope of the letter monopoly, although in the event of a cessation or serious disruption to the letter service we would consider suspending it. The Government and the Post Office remain fully committed to the existence of a national letter service available to everyone, including those in rural areas, at a reasonable and uniform tariff.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure that all parts of the country continue to receive a high standard of letter and parcel delivery services.

  Mr. Leigh
  Decisions concerning aspects of the day-to-day running of the Post Office, such as those affecting the quality of the postal service, are the operational responsibility of the Post Office. The chairman of the Post Office regards quality of service for the customer as a key priority and is constantly searching for ways to improve performance in this crucial area. We welcome his emphasis on achieving better quality of service.

  GATT
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the Uruguay round of the GATT and its implications for the manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  As I said earlier, negotiations in the Uruguay round are continuing, and we hope they will yield
  223
  results which will be of substantial benefit to United Kingdom industry. As we export about a quarter of what we produce, we stand to gain from the opening up of world markets, and to share in the greater wealth that trade generates.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Multilateral negotiations to agree a successor regime to govern international trade in textiles after the M FA expires on 31 July 1991 have been taking place as part of the wider GATT Uruguay round. The United Kingdom and EC, together with all other negotiating partners, are committed to integrating the textiles sector into GATT on the basis of strengthened rules and disciplines.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department intends to bring forward any new proposals in the field of regional policy.

  Mr. Leigh
  We have no plans to introduce new regional measures, but policy is kept under continuing review. The Government remain committed to an effective regional policy and will continue to make the necessary resources available.

  Brewing
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any proposals to increase the degree of competition in the brewing industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  The measures that we have already introduced following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer are designed to sharpen competition in the brewing industry. We have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to keep the effect of these measures under review and will consider further steps to promote competition if it should be shown that they are needed.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a wide range of business matters. I met the CBI twice during the week beginning 14 January, once to discuss wider ownership and once to discuss the outlook for pay and productivity.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the effect of sanctions against Iraq on British industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1989 visible exports to Iraq and Kuwait formed 0·75 per cent. of our exports worldwide.224
  The effect of sanctions against Iraq on British industry has varied according to companies' reliance on that market, and the extent to which they had taken out insurance.

  Political Donations (Company Law)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any proposals to amend company law in respect of political donations.

  Mr. Redwood
  Companies are required to disclose in their directors' report details of every political donation exceeding £200 made in the course of the financial year. These provisions operate satisfactorily and no amendments are needed.

  Office Equipment
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the present balance of trade in office equipment with(a) the EC and (b) the rest of the world.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is no sector in official statistics which covers all office equipment. In the sector of office machines and automatic data-processing machines, however, the United Kingdom had a positive crude balance of trade of £547 million with the EC countries and a deficit of £1,939 million with the rest of the world in the year to November 1990.

  Solvent-based Products
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding the adequacy of the provisions contained in the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act designed to restrict the sale of solvent-based products to minors.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have received a small number of representations, but I am satisfied that the provisions in the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act are adequate to cut off sniffers' supplies at source. It is now a matter of local enforcement of the law.

  Company Sizes
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average size of companies in(a) other EC countries and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  No comparable data on the average size of companies in different EC countries are readily available. However, the vast majority of companies in all EC countries are bound to be very small.

  Accounting and Auditing
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will review the regulations on accounting and auditing in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  The statutory provisions on company accounts and auditing are extensive. If the hon. Member has a particular problem in mind and cares to send me details, I shall be pleased to consider it.

  Biotechnology Products
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the present United Kingdom share of the world market in biotechnology products.
  225
  Mr. Leigh
  There are no market statistics for biotechnology products since they are aggregated within those for pharmaceuticals, chemicals, agriculture and food.

  Business Investment
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of new business investment in the black country.

  Mr. Leigh
  No official survey of new business investment in the four black country boroughs of Wolverhampton, Sandwell, Dudley and Walsall has been undertaken. Since the beginning of 1988 my Department has, however, committed £19·7 million to industry in the black country in the form of regional selective assistance grants. This figure is associated with an overall investment of £187·3 million and the creation and safeguarding of nearly 10,000 jobs.

  Soviet Union (Aid)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role his Department is playing in the European Communities' aid provision for the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department has been closely involved in the discussion about the Community's package of aid to the Soviet Union.

  As the House will be aware from the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 15 January, the Community's package of aid will not be implemented unless the Soviet authorities reverse their recent actions in the Baltic states.

  Information Technology
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to facilitate the move to open systems for hardware and software.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department is currently playing a leading role in promoting the uptake and use of open systems across business. It is contributing significantly towards generation of international and European open systems standards. Many of these standards are now being implemented by IT suppliers in new products and systems. Encouragement is being given towards establishing a United Kingdom open systems interconnection (OSI) conformance testing facility. Harmonisation of European and international certification schemes, essential for providing assurance that products and systems conform to open systems standards, is being promoted.

  The Department's programme of open systems technology transfer (OSTT) aims to make all sectors of industry, both public and private, aware of the business benefits that can be achieved through use of open systems. As part of this programme the Department is assisting in the production of a comprehensive guide listing computer products which are available in the United Kingdom, conforming to open systems standards. Progress in the development of open systems standards for use in the public sector has enabled the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency of Her Majesty's Treasury to produce the United Kingdom Government OSI profile
  226
  (GOSIP). This advises Departments on how open systems interconnection standards may be adopted when implementing their IT computer procurement programmes.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the present level of his Department's investment in safety-critical software systems.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department of Trade and Industry uses administrative computer systems which by their nature do not raise issues of safety. However, as part of its responsibility for stimulating best practice in the software industry, it has led the "Safe IT" initiative to stimulate action to improve the reliability of safety-related software and systems. The consultative document, launched in June 1990 in conjunction with several Government Departments represented on the Interdepartmental Committee on Software Engineering (ICSE), includes proposals for standards, training and education, research and development and technology transfer. The Department's aim is to stimulate action which will reflect the concerns of all interested parties—from Government Departments through professional institutions arid suppliers to all users of safety-related systems.

  Mineral Stockpile
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what type of material is contained in the strategic mineral stockpile.

  Mr. Leigh
  The hon. Member has asked similar questions on two occasions. I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave on 16 November at column 236.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the capital and current costs and budgets incurred by central Government Departments and local authority departments to cover the planning, implementation and enforcement of the poll tax for each year since 1986–87 until the end of 1992–93 in respect of expenditure on(a) transitional grants and other transitional arrangements, (b) additional members of staff, (c) capital costs of administrative systems, (d) collection and enforcement costs, (e) expenses involved in diligence, (f) additional payments of benefits and (g) additional costs of administration for benefit systems, together with total costs incurred in any advertising or promotion relating to new poll tax procedures.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The available information is as follows:
  227

  Local Authority Costs

  Current expenditure—administration of community charge Based on local authorities' returns to the Scottish Office, the costs of administering the community charge for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91 are as follows:

  1989–90 Budget estimate

  1989–90 Provisional outturn

  1990–91 Budget estimate

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Community charge collection

  23·3

  17·2

  38·9

  Community charge registration

  8·5

  8·7

  14·3

  Total

  31·8

  25·9

  53·2

  Notes:

  1. Any current expenditure costs incurred in the years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 were included within the cost of the running of the rating system and are not separately identifiable.

  2. The information for 1991–92 will not be received before mid-February. Information about 1992–93 will not be received before mid-February 1992.

  3. Although these figures include staffing costs as well as expenditure incurred in the recovery of arrears, these costs are not identified separately in local authorities' returns.

  Current Expenditure—Administration of Community Charge Benefit Scheme
  Again based on local authorities' returns to the Scottish Office, the costs of administering the Community Charge Benefit Scheme are as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90 Budget Estimate

  1989–90 Provisional Outturn

  1990–91 Budget Estimate

  9·60

  9·45

  11·02

  Note: These figures include the cost to the 3 Islands Councils of administering the Housing Benefit Scheme. In the case of these authorities the figures for the Community Charge Benefit Scheme are not identified separately.

  Current Expenditure—Administration of Community Charge Transitional Relief Scheme
  Information about the costs incurred by local authorities in administering the Community Charge Transitional Relief Scheme is not yet available centrally.

  Capital Expenditure
  No information is held centrally on the capital costs actually incurred by local authorities in connection with the administration of the community charge, but additional capital consent amounting to £21 million was provided in the years 1988–89 and 1989–90 for this purpose.

  Central Government Costs
  Costs in connection with the Community Charge Benefit Scheme are a matter for the Department of Social Security. So far as the Scottish Office is concerned, the costs do not vary greatly from those incurred in connection with the domestic rates system.

  Publicity Costs
  Costs incurred by the Scottish Office on publicity in relation to the community charge system are as follows:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £

  £

  £

  481,000

  524,000

  74,000

  10,000

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of local government income in Scotland came from(a) domestic rates/poll tax, (b) non-domestic rates and (c) rate/revenue support grant and specific grants, in each year since 1973–74.
  228
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Figures are not available for 1973–74 and 1974–75. The information for later years is given in the table.

  Domestic rates/ Community charge per cent·

  Non-domestic rate per cent·

  Rate/Revenue support grant and specific grants per cent·

  1975–76

  15·55

  19·63

  64·82

  1976–77

  14·23

  18·62

  67·15

  1977–78

  14·80

  19·72

  65·48

  1978–79

  12·01

  22·48

  65·51

  1979–80

  12·11

  22·89

  65·00

  1980–81

  13·14

  24·54

  62·32

  1981–82

  15·58

  28·23

  56·19

  1982–83

  16·12

  28·57

  55·31

  1983–84

  15·48

  27·64

  56·88

  1984–85

  16·19

  28·36

  55·45

  1985–86

  17·62

  28·34

  54·04

  1986–87

  18·92

  29·83

  51·25

  1987–88

  19·47

  29·94

  50·59

  1988–89

  19·22

  29·19

  51·59

  1989–90

  21·52

  25·77

  52·71

  1990–91

  21·73

  23·82

  54·45

  Notes:

  1. The figures for domestic and non-domestic rates are derived from data published in the Rating Review for the relevant years up to 1988–89. For 1989–90 and 1990–91 the amounts for the community charge and non-domestic rate income are taken from the Provisional Outturn/Budget Estimate returns made by local authorities to the Scottish Office.

  2. The forecasts for rate and revenue support grants and specific grants are final amounts or those applying to the most recent Order.

  3. Domestic rates figures are net of domestic rate relief.

  4. All figures of domestic rate and community charge income are inclusive of rebates.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred by his Department in ensuring slaughterhouses in Scotland meet EC standards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office does not provide any special financial assistance for compliance with EC standards in slaughterhouses. Advice on these standards is available from the state veterinary service.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual level of unemployment in Scotland in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This information is available on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information if necessary.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the Scottish industrial work force is unskilled.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Estimates from the 1989 labour force survey indicate that 6·1 per cent. of those in employment in Scotland were in unskilled occupations.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was Scotland's share of United Kingdom employment in(a) 1979 and (b)
  229
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In June 1979 Scotland's share of the civilian work force in employment in the United Kingdom was 9 per cent. In June 1989, the Scottish share was 8·5 per cent.

  Fixed Capital Formation
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the gross domestic fixed capital formation per head in Scotland as a percentage of the United Kingdom total in each year from 1974 to the most recent available date.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The table gives the available information on gross domestic fixed capital formation—GDFCF—per head in Scotland as a percentage of the equivalent GDFCF per head for the United Kingdom from 1974 to 1988, the latest year for which figures are available. The footnotes to the table explain the coverage of the estimates in different periods.

  Gross Domestic Fixed Capital Formation Per Head fir Selected Industries in Scotland as a Percentage of the United Kingdom1 2 3

  Year

  Number

  1974

  4 5 124

  1975

  4 5 140

  1976

  4 5 137

  1977

  5 123

  1978

  5 125

  1979

  5 120

  1980

  126

  1981

  130

  1982

  126

  1983

  115

  1984

  113

  1985

  115

  1986

  106

  1987

  93

  1988

  94

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  1 Leased assets are excluded.

  2 All figures exclude investment in land and existing buildings.

  3 Industries covered are Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Energy and Water supply, Manufacturing, Dwellings and Transport and Communications (excluding sea and air transport). United Kingdom figures exclude GDFCF on the Continental Shelf.

  4 Between 1974 and 1976, there is no information on GDFCF for Transport and Communications.

  5 The 1974–1979 estimates for private dwellings are not strictly comparable with estimates for later years.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures for Scotland's gross fixed capital formation as a percentage of the United Kingdom's, excluding the continental shelf, fixed capital formation for(a) all industries and (b) manufacturing for 1988 in a form comparable to that provided in his answer of 31 October 1990, Official Report, columns 589–90.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Gross domestic fixed capital formations in Scotland for selected industries as a percentage of the United Kingdom excluding the continental shelf in 1988 are as follows:

  Industry

  Per cent.

  All industries covered1

  8·4

  Manufacturing

  8·3

  1 The industries covered are Agriculture, forestry and fishing, Energy and water supply, Manufacturing, Transport and communications (excluding sea and air transport) and Dwellings.

  230
  Note: Figures exclude leased assets and investment in land and existing buildings.

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Manufacturing Plants
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the closest estimate he can provide of the percentage of manufacturing plants in Scotland which are United Kingdom-owned or controlled; and what percentage of Scottish manufacturing output is derived from (i) Scottish and (ii) United Kingdom-owned or controlled firms.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In 1988, according to the annual census of production, 95·8 per cent. of manufacturing plants in Scotland were United Kingdom-owned or controlled. The corresponding share of Scottish manufacturing gross output was 71·8 per cent. Information on Scottish ownership of manufacturing plants is not available.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investment from the Scottish Development Agency has been allocated in the Monklands, West constituency since 1983.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is set out in the table.

  £

  1983–84

  941,000

  1984–85

  1,727,000

  1985–86

  1,338,000

  1986–87

  551,000

  1987–88

  297,000

  1988–89

  118,000

  1989–90

  57,000

  Skye (Crossing)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the rights of Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. with regard to its future provision of a passenger or a passenger/vehicular ferry service between Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin in the light of a bridge to Skye; what assessment he has made of the potential financial impact upon the economic viability of a toll-funded bridge of some form of ferry service continuing to operate after its completion; what advice he has given to Highland regional council and to the tendering companies, respectively, on these points; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. will discontinue its vehicle service on the Kyle of LochalshKyleakin crossing when the Skye bridge is opened. It has no plans to operate any vehicle service on this crossing after that time.

  A socio-economic study is about to be undertaken jointly by the Scottish Office environment department, HIDB, Highland regional council and Skye and Lochalsh district council on the impact of the bridge on the local communities. This study will assess the local need and demand for a passenger-only ferry.

  Highland regional council and the companies tendering for a Skye bridge are fully aware of the situation.

  Nurses (Grading)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail in the Official Report, broken down into each health board area within Scotland, the total numbers of (a) nurse regrading appeals, (b) successful appeals from the above total and (c) total additional expenditure associated with (d) arising from the last nursing regrading procedure.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the total number of nurse regrading appeals and on the number and cost of successful appeals in Scotland is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Poinding
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to eliminate the use of poinding to gather in poll tax.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  No. Poinding is an integral part of the recovery of arrears of community charges.

  Criminal Justice Legislation
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce legislation to incorporate any of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill into Scottish legislation.

  Mr. Lang
  Provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill which would increase the maximum levels on the standard scale of fines in summary procedure, alter the related periods of imprisonment in default, and enable the courts to recover fines through the attachment of income support, extend to Scotland.

  The Bill also provides for changes in the parole system for England and Wales. We intend to introduce, at a suitable opportunity, legislation to implement our proposals, published in July 1990, in response to the Kincraig report "Parole and Related Issues in Scotland" (Cm. 598).

  Proposals in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public"—Cm. 965—which other provisions in the Bill reflect, extended only to England and Wales.

  Timber
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to introduce a freight subsidy for the carriage of timber felled in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Support for the carriage of timber by sea from Scottish island communities will continue to be provided by the tariff rebate subsidy —TRS—scheme. Following a review of the tariff rebate

  Department

  1 January 1991

  1 January 1990

  1 January 1989

  1 January 1988

  1 January 1987

  1 January 1986

  The Scottish Office Environment Department

  1,264·5

  1,276·5

  1,255·5

  1,305·5

  1,324·5

  1,342·5

  The Scottish Office Education Department

  540·5

  556·5

  544·0

  562·5

  591·5

  599·5

  The Scottish Office Home and Health Department

  890·5

  872·0

  855·0

  841·0

  928·0

  908· 0

  The Scottish Office Industry Department

  375·0

  380·5

  374·0

  346·0

  336·5

  346·5

  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department

  1,402·0

  1,464·5

  1,514·5

  1,641·5

  1,722·5

  1,930·0

  232
  subsidy scheme in 1988, the subsidy for the transport of certain bulk commodities, including timber, by sea from mainland areas is being phased out and will end on 31 March 1991. There are no plans to introduce any freight subsidy for timber traffic carried by other transport modes.

  Hospices, Renfrew
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide financial assistance for the development of hospices proposed or being operated by voluntary organisations in Renfrew district.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 1 April 1990 all independent hospices in Scotland which do not require patients to make a financial contribution towards their care qualify for Government funding of at least 50 per cent. of their running costs.

  Redundancies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of people made redundant from the former Talbot factory in Linwood who have not worked in full-time employment since its closure.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I have no such information.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is, for each year since 1985, the average expenditure of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in sports facilities for their pupils in (i) Greater Glasgow, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which national health service district general hospitals in Scotland provide British sign language interpreters for deaf people; and which charge for this service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Scottish Civil Service
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by department the total number of persons employed by the Scottish Office on 1 January 1991 and on the same date in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table.
  233

  Department

  1 January 1991

  1 January 1990

  1 January 1989

  1 January 1988

  1 January 1987

  1 January 1986

  Central Services

  1,752·0

  1,720·0

  1,762·5

  1,795·5

  1,834·5

  1,831·0

  Total

  6,224·5

  6,270·0

  6,305·5

  6,492·0

  6,737·5

  6,957·5

  Scottish Prison Service

  1 3,919·0

  3,822·0

  3,602·5

  3,347·0

  3,138·0

  2,933·5

  Totals

  10,143·5

  10,092·0

  9,908·0

  9,839·0

  9,875·5

  9,891·0

  1 As at 1 December 1990, latest available figure.

  The figures take account of the following transfers of staff arising from machinery of government changes:

  Date

  Number

  March 1986

  Staff to Royal Botanic Garden

  169·5

  July 1987

  Staff to Scottish Legal Aid Board

  52

  April 1988

  Staff to Crofters Commission/Red Deer Commission

  61

  Total

  —282·5

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons and at what grades are employed in the Scottish Office inquiries and reporters unit.

  Mr. Lang
  Forty-one officers are employed in the unit as follows:

  Grade

  Number employed

  Chief Reporter [(Unified Grade 3)]

  1

  Deputy Chief Reporter [(Unified Grade 5)]

  1

  Principal Reporter

  2

  Reporter

  8

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  3

  Executive Officer

  4

  Administrative Officer

  15

  Administrative Assistants

  4

  Personal Secretary (part-time)

  2

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons and at what grades are employed as clerks in(a) the sheriff courts, (b) the Court of Session and (c) the High Court of Justiciary.

  Grade

  Agriculture

  Fisheries

  Total

  Open Structure

  Grade 2—Deputy Secretary

  0·5

  0·5

  1·0

  Grade 3—Under Secretary

  1·0

  1·0

  2·0

  Grade 4—Chief Scientific Officer

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 4—Chief Agricultural Officer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 5—Assistant Secretary

  6·0

  3·0

  9·0

  Grade 5—Deputy Chief Scientific Officer

  2·0

  1·0

  3·0

  Grade 5—Senior Economic Adviser

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 5—Deputy Chief Agricultural Officer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 6—Senior Principal Scientific Officer

  7·0

  5·0

  12·0

  Grade 6—Chief Inspector, Sea Fisheries

  —

  10

  10

  Grade 6—Assistant Chief Agricultural Officer

  5·0

  —

  5·0

  Grade 6—Chief Surveyor

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 7—Principal

  14·5

  6·0

  20·5

  Grade 7—Principal Scientific Officer

  5·0

  27·0

  32·0

  Grade 7—Deputy Chief Inspector, Sea Fisheries

  —

  2·0

  2·0

  Grade 7—Statistician

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 7—Economic Adviser

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  Grade 7—Inspector, Salmon Fisheries

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 7—Chief Fatstock Officer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 7—Surveyor

  5·0

  —

  5·0

  Administrative grades

  Senior Executive Officer

  8·0

  4·0

  12·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  37·5

  10·0

  47·5

  Executive Officer

  57·5

  18·0

  75·5

  234
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Staff of the Court of Session and of the High Court of Justiciary are now trained to be competent in all the work of the supreme courts and are no longer separately identified. Clerks in both the supreme courts and the sheriff courts have specific and separate job titles but are shown in the equivalent civil service grades in the table.

  Grade

  Supreme courts

  Sheriff courts

  Grade 5

  1

  1

  Grade 6

  —

  5

  Grade 7

  3

  6

  SEO

  22

  14

  HEO

  9

  61

  EO

  16

  153·5

  AO

  9

  1197·5

  1 Includes 11 clerk/typists.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are employed and in what grade in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland who work(a) in agriculture and (b) in fishing.

  Mr. Lang
  At 1 January 1991 the number of staff employed in the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department was 1,402 of whom 873 were employed in association with the Department's agricultural responsibilities and 529 in association with fisheries responsibilities. Details of the staff by grade in each of the areas are as follows:—
  235

  Grade

  Agriculture

  Fisheries

  Total

  Administrative Officer

  123·5

  21·0

  144·5

  Administrative Assistant

  106·0

  12·5

  118·5

  Professional, Technical and Scientific Grades

  Senior Economic Assistant

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Economic Assistant

  1·5

  —

  1·5

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  1·0

  1·0

  2·0

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  14

  —

  14

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  11

  1·0

  12

  Professional and Technical Officer

  31

  7·0

  38

  Senior Scientific Officer

  5·0

  43

  48

  Higher Scientific Officer

  18

  39

  57

  Scientific Officer

  17

  39

  56

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  27·5

  24

  51·5

  Principal Agricultural Officer

  13

  —

  13

  Senior Agricultural Officer

  53

  —

  53

  Higher Agricultural Officer

  52

  —

  52

  Agricultural Officer

  98

  —

  98

  Chief Food and Dairy Officer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Food and Dairy Officer

  4·0

  —

  4·0

  Assistant Food and Dairy Officer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Principal Horticultural Officer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Senior Horticultural Officer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Higher Horticultural Officer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Horticultural Officer

  2·0

  —

  5·0

  Principal Poultry Officer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Meat and Livestock Officer

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  Higher Marketing Officer

  7·0

  —

  7·0

  Marketing Officer

  8·0

  —

  8·0

  Farm Manager

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 2

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  Technical Grade 1

  2·0

  —

  2.0

  Technical Grade 2

  5·0

  —

  5·0

  Senior Photographer

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Principal Photographer

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Graphics Officer

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Inspector of Sea Fisheries

  —

  8·0

  8·0

  Fishery Officer 1

  —

  22

  22

  Fishery Officer 2

  —

  31

  31

  Collector of Fisheries Statistics

  —

  0·5

  0·5

  Marine Superintendent

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Engineer Superintendent

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Commander

  —

  5·0

  5·0

  First Officer

  —

  12

  12

  Second Officer

  —

  20

  20

  Senior Fishing Mate

  —

  2·0

  2·0

  Junior Fishing Mate

  —

  3·0

  3·0

  Chief Engineer

  —

  4·0

  4·0

  Second Engineer

  —

  6·0

  6·0

  Third Engineer

  —

  25

  25

  Librarian

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Assistant Librarian

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Secretarial and Support Grades

  Senior Personal Secretary

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  Personal Secretary

  20·0

  8·0

  28·0

  Typing Manager

  2·0

  1·0

  3·0

  Typist

  30·5

  6·0

  36·5

  Support Grade Band 1

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Support Grade Band 2

  8·0

  5·5

  13·5

  Industrial Grades

  Gardener

  3·3

  —

  3·3

  Assistant Gardener

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Patrolman

  4·0

  —

  4·0

  Estate Worker

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grieve

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  Experimental Worker

  2·0

  5·0

  7·0

  Shepherd

  10

  —

  1·0

  Stockworker

  40

  —

  40

  Farm Worker

  70

  —

  70

  Tractorman

  6·0

  —

  6·0

  Driver/Handyman

  2·0

  8·0

  10·0

  Senior Storeman

  —

  3·0

  3·0

  Storeman

  —

  3·0

  3·0

  236 237

  Grade

  Agriculture

  Fisheries

  Total

  Chief Petty Officer

  —

  5·0

  5·0

  Petty Officer

  —

  2·0

  2·0

  Chief Steward

  —

  5·0

  5·0

  Chief Cook

  —

  3·0

  3·0

  Cook Steward

  —

  4·0

  4·0

  Steward

  —

  10·0

  10·0

  Seaman

  —

  27·0

  27·0

  Motorman

  —

  11·0

  11·0

  Net Rigger

  —

  2·0

  2·0

  Engineering Craftsman

  —

  3·0

  3·0

  Electrical Engineering Craftsman

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Semi-skilled Engineer

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Craftsman

  —

  3·0

  3·0

  TOTAL

  873

  529

  1,402

  Overseas Representation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any changes are being made to the overseas representation of Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Development Agency/Scottish Enterprise in the current year.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  For the current year, neither the Scottish Development Agency nor Locate in Scotland have made, nor do they have any firm plans to make, any substantive changes to their overseas representation. The question of overseas representation is, however, kept under regular review to ensure that it is appropriate to prevailing market conditions.

  Development Agencies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available the staffing structure of the Scottish Development Agency at its headquarters office and its equivalent under Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The staffing structures of the Scottish Development Agency and of Scottish Enterprise are essentially operational matters to be determined by the board of each body. Details of the senior staff employed by the agency are set out in its annual report for 1990, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) which industrial sectors had Scottish Development Agency teams working in them in 1988; and how many staff were employed in each team;

  (2) which industrial sectors have Scottish Enterprise teams scheduled to start on 1 April; and how many staff are to be employed in each team.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  These are operational matters for the bodies concerned and I have asked their chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the relevant expenditure for education on which his Department was willing to pay grant in every year since 1979 at 1990–91 prices.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is set out in the table.
  238

  Provision/grant aided expenditure at 1990–91 prices

  £ million

  1978–79

  1,631·2

  1979–80

  1,594·0

  1980–81

  1,466·4

  1981–82

  1,705·4

  1982–83

  1,860·4

  1983–84

  1,842·5

  1984–85

  1,770·6

  1985–86

  1,743·9

  1986–87

  1,746·1

  1987–88

  1,992·2

  1988–89

  1,925·5

  1989–90

  1,936·8

  1990–91

  1,973·1

  Notes:

  1. The figures for the years 1978–79 to 1983–84 inclusive include provision for libraries and museums as well as education in accordance with the provision categorisation provided in the Rate Support Grant Orders.

  2. The figures for 1978–79 to 1988–89 inclusive are provision figures. Provision was replaced by grant aided expenditure (GAE) with effect from 1990–91.

  3. The figures for all years are at 1990–91 prices calculated by means of the Treasury GDP deflator (October 1990).

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the outturn figures for(a) all local government expenditure and (b) local government education expenditure in every year since 1979 at 1990–91 prices.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is set out in the table.

  Expenditure at 1990–91 prices

  Education expenditure at 1990–91 prices

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  4,224·6

  1,792·8

  1979–80

  4,573·8

  1,799·1

  1980–81

  4,608·6

  1,877·5

  1981–82

  4,671·7

  1,928·6

  1982–83

  4,690·0

  1,934·0

  1983–84

  4,727·1

  1,950·6

  1984–85

  4,760·3

  1,913·6

  1985–86

  4,695·1

  1,871·0

  1986–87

  4,848·5

  1,938·3

  1987–88

  4,959·7

  2,001·4

  1988–89

  5,012·8

  2,026·8

  1989–90

  5,065·5

  2,080·9

  1990–91

  5,131·7

  2,097·1

  239
  Notes

  1. The figures in column 1 are inclusive of loan and leasing charges while those in column 2 are exclusive of such charges as separate loan and leasing charges for education are not readily available.

  2. The figures are at final outturn to 1988–89, provisional outturn for 1989–90 and budget estimate for 1990–91.

  3. All years have been converted to 1990–91 prices by means of the Treasury GDP deflator (October 1990).

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, following his announcement of increased assistance for business ratepayers, if he will make a statement on non-domestic rates for 1991–92.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  I am delighted that the additional resources which have become available to me allow greater progress to be made next year towards full harmonisation of non-domestic rates. The reduction of £100 million which I announced to the House on 17 January is more than twice what we included in the spending plans made last year and will mean a significant reduction in the gap between rate burdens north and south of the border. In spite of this major increase in funding, local authorities are still being asked to contribute only £10 million through efficiency savings.

  1 1990–91 poundages

  2 1991–92 Pre-NNDR reduction

  3 1991–92 poundages

  4 1991–92 poundages at ratepayer level

  5 Reduction to ratepayer

  Borders

  36·0

  39·9

  36·5

  —

  —

  Central

  41·7

  46·2

  42·3

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  38·3

  42·5

  38·9

  —

  —

  Fife

  46·1

  51·1

  46·8

  —

  —

  Grampian

  34·2

  37·9

  34·7

  —

  —

  Highland

  41·3

  45·8

  41·9

  —

  —

  Lothian

  47·5

  52·7

  48·2

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  46·0

  51·0

  46·7

  —

  —

  Tayside

  43·0

  47·7

  43·6

  —

  —

  Berwickshire

  7·5

  8·3

  7·6

  44·1

  4·1

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  8·5

  9·4

  8·6

  45·1

  4·2

  Roxburgh

  9·4

  10·4

  9·5

  46·0

  4·3

  Tweedale

  7·2

  8·0

  7·3

  43·8

  4·1

  Clackmannan

  14·9

  16· 5

  15·1

  57·4

  5·3

  Falkirk

  12·2

  13·5

  12·4

  54·7

  5·0

  Stirling

  18·1

  20·1

  18·4

  60·7

  5·6

  Annandale and Eskdale

  9·1

  10·1

  9·2

  48·1

  4·5

  Nithsdale

  9·1

  10·1

  9·2

  48·1

  4·5

  Stewartry

  7·9

  8·8

  8·0

  46·9

  4·4

  Wigtown

  7·4

  8·2

  7·5

  46·4

  4·3

  Dunfermline

  10·1

  11·2

  10·2

  57·0

  5·3

  Kirkcaldy

  12·6

  14·0

  12·8

  59·6

  5·5

  North East Fife

  11·3

  12·5

  11·5

  58·3

  5·3

  Aberdeen City

  11·0

  12·2

  11·2

  45·9

  4·2

  Banff and Buchan

  9·8

  10·9

  9·9

  44·6

  4·2

  Gordon

  7·9

  8·8

  8·0

  42·7

  40

  Kincardine and Deeside

  6·5

  7·2

  6·6

  41·3

  3·8

  Moray

  8·2

  9·1

  8·3

  43·0

  4·0

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  6·3

  7·0

  6·4

  48·3

  4·5

  Caithness

  9·8

  10· 9

  9·9

  51·8

  4·9

  Inverness

  7·5

  8·3

  7·6

  49·5

  4·6

  Lochaber

  11·4

  12·6

  11·6

  53·5

  4·9

  Nairn

  6·3

  7·0

  6·4

  48·3

  4·5

  Ross and Cromarty

  9·8

  10·9

  9·9

  51·8

  4·9

  Skye and Lochalsh

  9·4

  10·4

  9·5

  51·4

  4·8

  Sutherland

  7·1

  7·9

  7·2

  49·1

  4·6

  East Lothian

  13·4

  14·9

  13·6

  61·8

  5·8

  Edinburgh City

  13·1

  14·5

  13·3

  61· 5

  5·7

  Midlothian

  13·4

  14·9

  13·6

  61·8

  5·8

  West Lothian

  11·8

  13·1

  12·0

  60·2

  5·6

  Argyll and Bute

  14·9

  16· 5

  15·1

  61· 8

  5·7

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  10·3

  11·4

  10·4

  57·1

  5·3

  Clydesbank

  15·3

  17·0

  15·5

  62·2

  5·8

  240
  The table shows the rate poundage which I intend to prescribe for each local authority in regulations that I shall lay before Parliament shortly. These regulations will revoke those made last week. The rate poundage reductions apply across the board to all authorities with the exception of Shetland where a reduction of about 6 per cent., around two thirds of the average, is sufficient to bring the local rate into line with next year's national non-domestic rate in England of 38·6p. There will, therefore, be no need for reductions in the Shetland rate poundage in future years under this policy and the number of areas in Shetland's position will increase as the policy proceeds to its conclusion.

  As I also announced on 17 January, as a result of the larger reduction in poundages than previously intended I propose to reduce the level of derating next year from its present level of 35 to 30 per cent., not 32 per cent. I have already indicated that I intend reviewing the way in which poundages and derating may be reduced in future and the powers available to me, which do not allow me at the present time to set different levels of industrial derating in different areas within Scotland, and I would welcome the views of interested bodies on these matters.
  241

  1 1990–91 poundages

  2 1991–92 Pre-NNDR reduction

  3 1991–92 poundages

  4 1991–92 poundages at ratepayer level

  5 Reduction to ratepayer

  Clydesdale

  13·2

  14·6

  13·4

  60·1

  5·5

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  13·0

  14·4

  13·2

  59·9

  5·5

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  13·4

  14·9

  13·6

  60·3

  5·6

  Cunninghame

  16·1

  17·9

  16·3

  63·0

  5·9

  Dumbarton

  14·9

  16·5

  15·1

  61·8

  5·7

  East Kilbride

  11·2

  12·4

  11·4

  58·1

  5·3

  Eastwood

  7·9

  8·8

  8·0

  54·7

  5·1

  Glasgow City

  20·9

  23·2

  21·2

  67·9

  6·3

  Hamilton

  14·2

  15·7

  14·4

  61·1

  5·6

  Inverclyde

  12·6

  14·0

  12·8

  59·5

  5·5

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  13·0

  14·4

  13·2

  59·9

  5·5

  Kyle and Carrick

  13·4

  14·9

  13·6

  60·3

  5·6

  Monklands

  14·2

  15·7

  14·4

  61·1

  5·6

  Motherwell

  12·9

  14·3

  13·1

  59·8

  5·5

  Renfrew

  14·2

  15·7

  14·4

  61·1

  5·6

  Strathkelvin

  12·6

  14·0

  12·8

  59·5

  5·5

  Angus

  10·6

  11·8

  10·8

  54·4

  5·1

  Dundee City

  16·9

  18·7

  17·1

  60·7

  5·7

  Perth and Kinross

  11·0

  12·2

  11·2

  54·8

  5·1

  Orkney

  39·3

  43·6

  39·9

  39·9

  3·7

  Shetland

  37·1

  41·1

  38·6

  38·6

  2·5

  Western Isles

  57·6

  63·9

  58·4

  58·4

  5·5

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the number of general practitioner firms that have applied to become budget holders in each health board area in Scotland; how many of these firms operate practices in rural areas; and when he expects to be able to confirm the final numbers of practices to be approved.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: So far, four practices—or in some cases groups of practices—have sought formal approval to commence fundholding from 1 April 1991. The health boards responsible are currently in the final stages of determining these applications. Details of these applications are provided in the table, including location as an indicator of degree of rurality.

  Health Board and Location

  Number of Practices

  Tayside

  2

  Forfar

  Dundee

  Lothian

  1

  Edinburgh

  Argyll and Clyde

  1

  Helensburgh

  There is no time limit for the submission of applications, and a number of other practices are known to be working towards taking part in the scheme as from a later date.

  Carstairs Hospital
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the number of patients at Carstairs hospital who have been kept there principally because(a) they are mentally disturbed criminals, (b) they are
  242
  mentally ill but not criminals, (c) they are mentally handicapped and (d) other reasons for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: Patients at the state hospital are classified as either restricted or state patients or detained non-restricted patients. Restricted patients have either been convicted of, or have been alleged to have committed, a criminal offence, but are considered by medical opinion to be suffering from a treatable mental disorder and to constitute a serious danger to the public. Detained patients will have previously been receiving treatment in ordinary psychiatric hospitals for mental disorder on a compulsory basis but have become sufficiently dangerous either to themselves or others to require to be detained in the secure conditions at Carstairs. The majority of these will not have committed any criminal offences.

  The numbers in the categories requested are as follows:

  (a)Mentally disturbed patients who have committed offences

  (b)Patients who are Mentally ill

  (c)1 Patients who have mental handicap

  Other

  1986

  157

  70

  42

  —

  1987

  146

  64

  49

  —

  1988

  148

  68

  48

  —

  1989

  163

  66

  40

  —

  1990

  163

  59

  44

  —

  1 These patients are also included under (a) and (b)

  Notes: The figures are at 31 December in each year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sewage Sludge Dumping
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on which two most recent dates the sites were monitored at which he allows Wessex Water and
  243
  Welsh Water to dump, respectively, 55,000 and 300,000 tonnes of sewage sludge; what were the results; and what traces of organic and metal contaminants were found.

  Mr. Curry
  Monitoring at the Bristol channel sewage sludge disposal site was carried out in 1988 and 1990. The surveys were undertaken jointly by the Welsh and Wessex water authorities in 1988 and by the successor water companies in 1990 under conditions of disposal licences issued by the Ministry.

  Sheep Dipping
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will arrange for any inquiry into changes of regulations on sheep dipping to be held in public.

  Mr. Maclean
  I announced on 21 June 1990 the Government's intention to review arrangements for the control of sheep scab during 1991. I am ready to take account of views expressed by any interested party on this as on all other issues.

  Carlisle Office
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date his Carlisle office received the application forms at the end of 1989 for the sheep annual premium; on what date they were distributed to farmers; and on what date they were due to be returned.

  Mr. Curry
  Claim forms for the first application period under the sheep annual premium scheme 1990 could not be completed until certain important details had been clarified by the European Commission. The Carlisle divisional office received the forms on 11 December 1989, and dispatched them to interested farmers on 12 December. The closing date for the lodging of first period applications was 27 December 1989.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent his Carlisle office is currently undermanned; and what requests he has had for extra staff appointments to be made.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of staff employed in our Carlisle office is currently one below complement in the administrative grades, and one below complement in the farm and countryside service. We have not received any direct requests for additional staff appointments to be made.

  Food From Britain
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for the three counties of Yorkshire and for Humberside, the sales of speciality food or drink products that Food From Britain has supported during 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  Neither Food From Britain nor this Department have details of sales by groups supported under the speciality food group scheme, nor has any group in the counties mentioned in fact applied for such support.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received a copy of the report of the Institute of Economic Affairs concerning salmonella contamination in eggs; and if he will make a statement.
  244
  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a copy of this report and have noted its contents. The Government's policy in relation to salmonella in eggs and poultry has been set out in evidence provided to the Select Committee on Agriculture.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) of 14 January,Official Report, column 392, what existing measures will continue to be taken where necessary to protect public health with regard to poultry flocks infected with salmonella typhimurium.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Minister's authority to exercise his powers under the Animal Health Act 1981 and the Zoonoses Order 1989 remains in force in relation to all types of salmonella. The arrangements for the compulsory slaughter of breeding flocks infected with salmonella typhimurium are to continue unchanged. For commercial egg-laying flocks, the automatic slaughter policy will continue in relation to salmonella enteritidis which remains the prime cause of salmonella food poisoning in humans. If infection from another type of salmonella is confirmed in a laying flock, slaughter will be required if this is considered necessary in the circumstances in order to safeguard public health.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the development of a diagnostic test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement on the progress of his research programme into this disease.

  Mr. Curry
  A considerable programme of research is in progress, including priority work to try and develop a diagnostic test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. However, the nature of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, including its long incubation period, means that answers cannot be expected for some time.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the future of milk quotas and whether milk quotas will remain at existing levels.

  Mr. Curry
  Since 1984 we have accepted milk quotas as the only negotiable means of controlling the cost to the Community of market support in the dairy sector. That cost is still excessive and I should welcome proposals from the European Commission for non-discriminatory quota cuts, together with support price adjustments as a step towards a more market-oriented regime. In the longer run the objective must be to move to levels of support which would permit the abandonment of quotas and allow market forces to influence production levels. In the meantime I have made it very clear that I could not contemplate discriminatory cuts in quota.

  Sandwiches
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the British Sandwich Association concerning its quality assurance scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  245
  Mr. Curry
  The association has recently informed my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) of the codes of practice that it is introducing for manufacturers and retailers of sandwiches. In his reply, my hon. Friend has acknowledged the efforts which the association has made since its formation in 1990 to raise safety and hygiene standards in the sandwich industry.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has, by port, on the number of fishing vessels up for sale since the introduction of the new EEC fishing regulations.

  Mr. Curry
  None. This Department does not collect information about the number of fishing vessels up for sale.

  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is proposing to take in respect of the lead-contaminated skimmed milk powder currently held in storage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The butter and skimmed milk powder manufactured from milk withheld from sale in 1989 following the distribution of animal feedingstuffs contaminated by lead was tested by the Ministry. Restrictions on sale were removed after lead levels were found to be well below the limits laid down in the Lead in Food Regulations 1979 as amended. The subsequent disposal of these products was a matter for the milk marketing board, which owned them. I understand that all the product in question has been exported.

  Eggs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to complete the funding of the British eggs marketing initiative; and what discussions he has had with the EEC Commission concerning this scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the provision of funds to the British Egg Industry Council for the purpose of promoting the marketing of eggs out of the assets of the Egg Authority, which was abolished in 1986. When due provision has been made for the outstanding liabilities of the former authority it is expected that the remaining funds will be made available to the British Egg Industry Council for promotion and

  30 March 1987 to 31 March 1989 £

  1 April 1989 to 26 August 1990 £

  Since 27 August 1990 £

  Routine visit

  (a) higher rate

  90

  78

  87

  (b) lower rate

  80

  60

  67

  First follow-up visit

  (a) higher rate

  —

  —

  87

  (b) lower rate

  —

  —

  67

  Subsequent follow-up visits

  (a) higher rate

  —

  78

  87

  (b) lower rate

  —

  60

  67

  246
  other activities until they are exhausted. It is not possible to say when this will be. Our officials have discussed the British Egg Industry Council's current promotional campaign with the Commission.

  Milk
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there are to be any changes to the existing system of purchasing milk quotas.

  Mr. Curry
  EC regulations do not permit the sale of quota as such, but quota is transferred in proportion to the areas used for milk production when all or part of a dairy holding is sold, leased or transferred by inheritance. The EC Commission is aware of pressure for greater flexibility in the quota transfer rules, which apply in their present form until the end of March 1992. Proposals for their extension or amendment have yet to be made.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Community directive on milk quality; what actions he is taking in respect of that directive; and if he foresees any future change in its conditions.

  Mr. Curry
  Council directive 85/397/EEC on intra-Community trade in heat-treated milk came into force on 1 January 1989. It is implemented in England and Wales by the Importation of Milk Regulations 1988 and in Scotland and Northern Ireland by similar provisions. Under the directive our domestic milk production has been formally recognised as achieving the higher "step 2" milk hygiene standards. Denmark is the only other member state to have achieved this.

  The Commission has tabled proposals for two Council regulations which would replace the directive and extend its standards to all Community-produced milk and milk products made from cows', goats', sheep's or buffaloes' milk. Discussions are under way and the United Kingdom is seeking an outcome which maintains and improves milk hygiene standards across the Community.

  Dairy Inspections
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the charges, in cash and real terms, for statutory inspections of dairies for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Gummer
  Charges for statutory inspections of dairy farms by Ministry dairy officers were introduced in 30 March 1987. Since then, charges have been as follows:
  247
  If the charges for routine visits had been raised in line with the retail prices index since March 1987, they would now be £116 (higher rate) and £103 (lower rate). The lower rates apply to inspections of farms with herds of fewer than 20 cows.

  Salmon
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about the report published by his Department on east coast salmon fisheries.

  Mr. Curry
  No report has yet been published. Work on the review is being completed and we hope to present it to Parliament shortly.

  Southern Sea Fisheries
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about fines for the contravention of local fishery legislation in the southern sea fisheries area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The question of the levels of fines for contraventions of local fishery legislation was raised with me when I met representatives of the Southern Sea Fisheries Committees on 23 October 1990. The matter is under consideration.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 21 and 22 January.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting, together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

  The Council heard an oral presentation from Commissioner MacSharry on his personal ideas for possible changes to the common agricultural policy. His approach was based on the desirability of retaining the largest number of farmers as possible in the Community irrespective of the viability of their farms. He envisaged significant cuts in prices and quotas, the introduction of some new direct payments to producers, an expansion of the Community's agro-environmental policies and that a revised policy should be deliberately slanted so as to favour smaller producers. He did not quote figures, but it appeared that changes on the lines suggested would result in a significant increase in budgetary costs.

  It was my intention to welcome the Commission's willingness to contemplate radical reform and certain strands of Mr. MacSharry's thinking, but to insist that changes should involve a reduction in costs, to advocate a closer integration of agricultural and environmental policies, and to reject the proposed discrimination against larger farmers on the grounds that this would prevent the emergence of a genuinely competitive European agriculture and would also involve unacceptable distortions between member states. However, only the Irish Minister was able to comment before the Commissioner was suddenly called away by a family bereavement. Discussions will resume at the next meeting of the Council of 4 February. It is not clear if the Commission will have adopted a definite position on CAP reform by them. The
  248
  Council agreed to extend the Community's sugar regime for two years from 1 July 1991 on the current basis except for a small reduction in the permissible maxima for national aids, including that for cane sugar refining.

  Fish Landings
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the increase in the value of United Kingdom fish landings by United Kingdom vessels in comparison with the retail prices index in the period 1980 to 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In 1989 the value of United Kingdom fish landings by United Kingdom vessels was £396 million. This was 78 per cent. higher than in 1980 and compares with an increase of 72 per cent. in the RPI during the same period. The latest provisional figures for 1990 suggest that the value of these landings has kept pace with the increase in the RPI.

  In the fisheries debate on 13 December 1990 I may have inadvertently misled the House when responding to a point made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) by referring at column 1180 to individual years rather than to the period as a whole.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Savings
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much revenue would be raised by putting national insurance contributions on the income from savings above(a) £3,000 and (b) £5,000; (i) including pensioners and (ii) excluding pensioners.

  Mr. Jack
  If such contributions were charged at the current employees' main percentage rate of 9 per cent. on all investment income above £3,000 and above £5,000 the gain to the national insurance fund would be as shown in the table. However, national insurance contributions are levied only on earnings from employment and this is consistent with the approach since the establishment of the National Insurance Scheme in 1948.

  Investment Income

  National insurance contribution income including pensioners

  National insurance contribution income excluding pensioners

  above £3,000

  £1·73 billion

  £0·96 billion

  above £5,000

  £1·35 billion

  £0·74 billion

  This estimate is based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and is therefore provisional.

  Tax Withdrawal Rates
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing (i) the number of working heads, (ii) dependants and (iii) families with children facing marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates in excess of 50 per cent., in the manner of his answer of 25 March 1988,Official Report, column 244.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  249

  Combined marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates 1990–91 Benefit units where at least one partner works full time (000) Numbers facing combined rates of over 50 per cent.—in bands Great Britain

  Per cent.

  Families with children

  Couples and single people

  Total

  100

  0

  0

  0

  90 to 99

  45

  0

  45

  80 to 89

  160

  30

  190

  70 to 79

  105

  55

  160

  60 to 69

  0

  0

  5

  50 to 59

  0

  0

  0

  Projections based on 1985, 1986 and 1987 Family Expenditure Surveys. Uprated to 1990–91 prices, taxes and benefits. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000. Totals may not add due to rounding.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the level of expenditure by his Department on the independent living fund for each of the past five years; and how much of this was spent in Scotland in each year.

  Mr. Scott
  The Independent Living Fund was established in June 1988. Expenditure published by the Fund in their annual reports was £1·35 million in 1988–89 and £10·08 million in 1989–90. Provision for 1990–91 is £32 million. Information on the cost of awards in Scotland is not available. However, around 9 per cent. of the fund's beneficiaries live in Scotland.

  Telephonic Liaison Service
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason the Department of Social Security Leicester, has discontinued the telephonic liaison service on a special line; and if he will take steps to have this restored.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The DSS local office at Leicester (Norton street) has replaced its telephone line dedicated to welfare rights inquiries with normal access to benefit sections plus, for particularly complex cases, reference to the assistant manager (liaison). It did so following complaints that the former system was not working. The effects of the new arrangements will be closely monitored.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by year for the last 10 years the number of households(a) below and (b) above average income.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the basis of income before housing costs is available for 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1987 and is in the table.

  Year

  Households below average income (millions)

  Households above average income (millions)

  1981

  12·0

  7·9

  1983

  12·6

  8·2

  1985

  12·8

  8·3

  1987

  13·7

  8·1

  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each of his local Department offices in the Doncaster area, how many people have made claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit during the current year to date and by year for the last 10 years; how many had their claims accepted; and what has been the total amount paid out in benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Figures relating to years before April 1984 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, as could figures about the number of claims accepted and the amount paid in benefit. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Claims received

  April

  Doncaster East

  Doncaster West

  1990–91

  1399

  1382

  1989–90

  484

  721

  1988–89

  454

  523

  1987–88

  507

  568

  1986–87

  599

  844

  1985–86

  760

  1,051

  1984–85

  425

  610

  1 Figures available to December 1990 only.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the budgets for 1990–91 for community care grants for each local office of his Department in Scotland and expenditure by each local office in Scotland to the end of December 1990.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of annual social fund budget allocation and expenditure for community care grants in local offices are placed in the Library.

  Resettlement
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, by departmental region, expenditure on(a) resettlement units and (b) grants to voluntary organisations and local authorities in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 to date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the exact form requested, as expenditure on these grants is not recorded by DSS region. However, information is held as follows:

  a. Expenditure on resettlement units

  Region

  1988–89 £000s

  1989–90 £000s

  11990–91 £000s

  Scotland

  550

  645

  411

  North Eastern

  1,104

  1,330

  722

  North Western

  1,086

  1,235

  813

  Midlands

  2,200

  2,466

  1,477

  Wales and South Western

  816

  973

  633

  London North

  1,408

  1,558

  925

  London South

  5,403

  6,291

  3,808

  Total

  12,567

  14,498

  8,789

  1 To 31 December.

  b. Grants to voluntary organisations and/or local authorities

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  Scotland

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  North Eastern

  124

  164

  587

  North Western

  22

  119

  55

  251

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  Midlands

  43

  579

  939

  Wales and South Western

  100

  655

  630

  London North1

  1,768

  1,900

  1,322

  London South1

  Total2

  2,057

  3,417

  3,533

  Note:1 A split of grants between London North and London South Regions is not available.

  2 Grants were also made to non replacement projects as follows

  £000s

  £000s

  £000s

  Scotland

  11

  11

  8

  England and Wales

  205

  268

  190

  216

  279

  198

  A split of these figures between the departmental regions is not available.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a timetable for the closure of resettlement units.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no specific timetable for the resettlement unit replacement programme. The Resettlement Agency, which is responsible for implementing the Government's plans to replace the 22 Department of Social Security resettlement units, is required to replace two units in 1990–91 and a further four in 1991–92. The first two will be the units in Brighton and Fazakerley (Liverpool), on 31 March 1991. Final decisions for 1991–92 have not yet been made.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the social fund may be used for a single homeless person to meet the cost of a deposit on private rented accommodation.

  Mr. Scott
  No, but help with rent in advance is available through crisis loans.

  Value of child support1 for each child in standard rate tax-paying families expressed at April 19902 prices (£)

  Children under age 11

  Children aged 11 to 15

  Children aged 16 and over

  Date3

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  April 1958

  8·32

  10·96

  11·77

  10·35

  13·09

  13·70

  12·48

  15·12

  15·83

  April 1959

  7·62

  10·36

  11·07

  9·45

  12·29

  13·00

  11·38

  14·12

  14·93

  April 1960

  7·56

  10·29

  11·09

  9·38

  12·20

  12·91

  11·29

  14·02

  14·82

  April 1961

  7·36

  10·01

  10·80

  9·13

  11·88

  12·57

  11·00

  13·65

  14·43

  April 1962

  6·97

  9·47

  10·22

  8·64

  11·24

  11·89

  10·40

  12·91

  13·65

  April 1963

  7·83

  10·29

  11·01

  9·47

  12·11

  12·65

  11·20

  13·74

  14·38

  April 1964

  7·67

  10·08

  10·79

  9·28

  11·87

  12·40

  10·97

  13·47

  14·10

  April 1965

  7·69

  10·06

  10·57

  9·38

  11·66

  12·26

  11·07

  13·35

  13·95

  April 1966

  7·43

  9·71

  10·20

  9·06

  11·26

  11·83

  10·69

  12·89

  13·46

  April 1967

  7·21

  9·43

  9·90

  8·79

  10·93

  11·49

  10·38

  12·52

  13·07

  April 1968

  6·90

  8·65

  9·18

  8·42

  10·16

  10·62

  9·94

  11·60

  12·14

  April 1969

  6·54

  8·55

  9·06

  7·98

  9·99

  10·49

  9·41

  11·43

  11·86

  April 1970

  6·19

  8·10

  8·57

  7·55

  9·46

  9·94

  8·91

  10·82

  11·23

  April 1971

  7·21

  9·14

  9·58

  8·33

  10·32

  10·76

  9·52

  11·44

  11·88

  April 1972

  6·79

  8·60

  9·01

  7·84

  9·71

  10·12

  8·95

  10·76

  11·17

  April 1973

  6·16

  7·71

  8·09

  7·29

  8·79

  9·16

  8·20

  9·70

  10·07

  April 1974

  7·07

  8·37

  8·70

  8·14

  9·35

  9·72

  9·02

  10·23

  10·61

  April 1975

  6·19

  8·56

  8·56

  7·07

  9·44

  9·44

  7·84

  10·25

  10·25

  April 1976

  6·49

  8·52

  8·52

  7·23

  9·26

  9·26

  7·91

  9·90

  9·90

  April 1977

  6·24

  7·14

  7·14

  6·87

  7·77

  7·77

  7·42

  8·29

  8·29

  April 1978

  7·43

  7·43

  7·43

  8·01

  8·01

  8·01

  8·50

  8·50

  8·50

  252
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the 1991–92 budget for the social fund in gross and net terms broken down into community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans.

  Mr. Scott
  The 1991–92 budget will be announced nearer the time.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the new take-up figures for income-related benefits.

  Mr. Jack
  Work on the take-up estimates is well advanced and we hope to publish them around Easter.

  Benefit Applications
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest average length of time taken to process applications for(a) family credit, (b) income support and (c) housing benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available information is as follows:

  Working days

  Family credit1

  20·4

  Income support1

  6·4

  Housing benefit2

  —

  1 Data derived from claims cleared during December 1990.

  2 Precise data is not available in respect of housing benefit.

  Approximately three-quarters of all claims are dealt with within the statutory 14-day period.

  Child Support
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the value of child support for each child in standard rate tax-paying families in 1990 prices from 1958 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is in the table. Figures for April 1991 cannot be given at April 1990 prices until the retail prices index (RPI) for April 1991 is published.
  253

  Children under age 11

  Children aged 11 to 15

  Children aged 16 and over

  Date3

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  April 1979

  9·22

  9·22

  9·22

  9·22

  9·22

  9·22

  9·22

  9·22

  9·22

  November 1980

  8·55

  8·55

  8·55

  8·55

  8·55

  8·55

  8·55

  8·55

  8·55

  November 1981

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  8·44

  November 1982

  8·85

  8·85

  8·85

  8·85

  8·85

  8·85

  8·85

  8·85

  8·85

  November 1983

  9·38

  9·38

  9·38

  9·38

  9·38

  9·38

  9·38

  9·38

  9·38

  November 1984

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  9·42

  November 1985

  9·13

  9·13

  9·13

  9·13

  9·13

  9·13

  9·13

  9·13

  9·13

  July 1986

  9·11

  9·11

  9·11

  9·11

  9·11

  9·11

  9·11

  9·11

  9·11

  April 1987

  8·91

  8·91

  8·91

  8·91

  8·91

  8·91

  8·91

  8·91

  8·91

  April 1988

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  8·57

  April 1989

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  April 1990

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  1 The combined value of child tax allowance after clawback and family allowance/child benefit.

  2 Reflects the April 1990 value of child support at the dates of uprating based on the movement in the general Index of retail prices.

  3 Child tax allowance ceased after the 1978–79 tax year and uprating dates are shown from 1979 onwards.

  4 And subsequent children.

  Dependants
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for the latest date available the number of dependants of unemployed people broken down into spouses and children.

  Mr. Jack
  On the basis of the statistical information regarding unemployment benefit and income support in payment at May 1989, the number of dependants of unemployed people is estimated to be as follows:

  Estimated number

  Adults1

  378,245

  Children2

  607,000

  1 It is not possible to isolate spouses. The figure is based on the number of cases where income support is payable in respect of a partner and, in the case of unemployment benefit, the number (of-adult dependency increases.

  2 All children under 16 plus those under 19 in full-time education.

  Deductions from Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households, from data taken for the Annual Statistical Inquiry, in 1989 and 1990, are having weekly deductions made from their supplementary benefit or income support as appropriate, for (i) electricity and (ii) gas of(a) under £2 per week and (b) in each £1 band above £2 per week up to £40 per week.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information available is shown in the table.

  May 19892

  Amount of deductions1

  Gas

  Electricity

  0·00–2·00

  3,000

  3,000

  2·01–3·00

  3,500

  5,500

  3·01–4·00

  6,500

  9,500

  4·01–5·00

  8,000

  9,500

  5·01–6·00

  11,000

  11,500

  6·01–7·00

  14,000

  14,000

  7·01–8·00

  15,000

  11,500

  8·01–9·00

  16,500

  10,000

  9·01–10·00

  16,000

  10,000

  10·01–11·00

  11,500

  9,500

  11·01–12·00

  10,000

  8,500

  12·01–13·00

  7,000

  5,000

  13·01–14·00

  5,500

  6,500

  254

  Amount of deductions1

  Gas

  Electricity

  14·01–15·00

  2,500

  4,000

  15·01–16·00

  1,500

  3,000

  16·01–17·00

  1,000

  2,000

  17·01–18·00

  1,000

  2,500

  18·01–19·00

  500

  1,500

  19·01–20·00

  500

  1,000

  320·01–24·00

  500

  3,500

  24·01–30·00

  5*

  1,000

  30·01 and over

  Nil

  Nil

  Total

  413,400

  131,500

  1 Deductions cover the cost of current consumption and where necessary, a specific amount to clear an outstanding bill. Number of cases have been rounded to nearest 500.

  2 Data for 1990 are not yet available.

  3 For figures over £20 per week the bands have been amalgamated as shown, since in single pound bands most would contain no cases or less than 500. The method by which these estimates are obtained does not imply a high level of precision for such numbers.

  4 Columns may not total to sum due to rounding.

  5* Denotes figures under 500.

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1989.

DEFENCE

  Near Miss, Perranporth
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Royal Air Force Harrier involved in an air miss with a hang glider near Perranporth on 17 July 1986 was found to have made an unauthorised penetration of(a) the Perranporth aerodrome traffic zone and (b) the Penhale hang gliding site.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No, since(a) no report of an unauthorised penetration of the Perranporth aerodrome traffic zone was received; and (b) military aircraft are not prohibited from overflying the Penhale hang gliding site; they are advised only to keep a good lookout if flying in the area.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, locations, aircraft involved, circumstances and heights of all category A air misses between civil and military aircraft in United Kingdom airspace during 1990.
  255
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The following category A airmisses between civil and military aircraft occurred over

  Date involved

  Location

  Aircraft

  Circumstances1

  Approximate height

  1 April 1990

  Ballykelly

  Cherokee/Gazelle

  Late sighting by both pilots

  2,300 ft.

  11 April 1990

  Tibenham

  Rollason Condor/A10

  Unauthorised penetration of Tibenham airfield area by A10 pilot

  600 ft.

  4 May 1990

  22 NM2 NE Flamborough Head

  SK76 helicopter/untraced military jet

  Conflict of flightpaths

  3,000 ft.

  8 May 1990

  Barton Stacey

  Gazelle/Cherokee

  Failure of Cherokee pilot to see Gazelle in time to give way and very late sighting of Cherokee by Gazelle pilot

  2,000 ft.

  1 Based on assessment by Joint Airmiss Working Group of cause of airmiss.

  2 NM—nautical miles.

  Borders Tactical Training Area
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of retaining the separation of the borders tactical training area into two distinct parts.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The separation of the borders tactical training area into two distinct parts allows for more efficient management of the airspace by permitting simultaneous use of the eastern and western parts by two different units, should this be needed.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers Her Majesty's Government have to take disciplinary action against pilots of allied air forces who are found to have breached low-flying regulations in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Her Majesty's Government have no disciplinary jursidiction over personnel of other air forces. If, however, personnel of a NATO member state based in the United Kingdom were to breach our low-flying regulations, legal jurisdiction for disciplinary proceeding would be dealt with under the NATO status of forces agreement and the Visiting Forces Act 1952. If personnel from another country not based in the United Kingdom were to breach these regulations, they would be dealt with under the arrangements contained in the memorandum of understanding with that, particular country.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many operational low-flying movements were authorised in the borders tactical training area on Saturday 11 August 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Ten.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been conducted by his Department on the impact of noise from low-flying aircraft on deer stalking activities.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the visits by aircraft from the 57 fighter interceptor squadron, United States air force, to RAF Leuchars on 16 to 19 July 1990; and what authorisation was given to these aircraft to carry out low flying over the United Kingdom.
  256
  the United Kingdom between January and June 1990. The joint air miss working group has not yet completed its assessments for the remainder of 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There were no such visits.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when No. 4 Squadron Royal Air Force first commenced night low-level training on the Harrier GR7; and if he will list the countries in which such training has so far taken place.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. 4 Squadron Royal Air Force has not yet commenced night low-level training on the Harrier GR7.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying movements were authorised in the borders tactical training area in each month from the earliest available records to the latest available date; and if he will provide a breakdown of the figures from September 1989 onwards into movements in the eastern and western parts of the borders tactical training area.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The borders tactical training area was formally incorporated into the United Kingdom low-flying system in 1984. Low-flying movements authorised in the area in each month from January 1984 to December 1987 are as follows:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  January

  0

  94

  42

  85

  February

  3

  63

  196

  98

  March

  0

  16

  24

  129

  April

  0

  0

  10

  247

  May

  0

  0

  0

  16

  June

  0

  0

  28

  0

  July

  0

  0

  26

  0

  August

  0

  0

  0

  0

  September

  0

  0

  24

  11

  October

  50

  0

  248

  23

  November

  60

  0

  0

  0

  December

  78

  0

  0

  17

  The number of low-flying movements authorised in the borders tactical training area in 1988 and 1989 were provided in the reply given to the hon. Member on 19 December 1990 at column 208, and for the period January to October 1990 in the reply given on 3 December 1990 at column 48.

  The numbers of low-flying movements authorised in the eastern and western parts of the borders tactical training area since September 1989 are as follows:
  257

  Borders Tactical Training Area

  East

  West

  1989

  September

  181

  135

  October

  57

  47

  November

  17

  21

  December

  0

  0

  1990

  January

  78

  71

  February

  191

  156

  March

  234

  179

  April

  117

  99

  May

  94

  91

  June

  68

  0

  July

  36

  36

  August

  318

  212

  September

  397

  317

  October

  411

  298

  November

  365

  260

  December

  121

  94

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the Territorial Army have been enlisted for service in the Gulf or to replace regular soldiers deployed to the Gulf;

  (2) how many of those members of the Territorial Army who have been enlisted for service in the Gulf or to replace regular soldiers deployed to the Gulf are in the Army medical services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  About 500 members of the Territorial Army have volunteered and been called out for service in the Gulf or to replace regular soldiers deployed to the Gulf. About 470 of them are medical specialists.

  TA and Cadets
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Territorial Army, Army cadets, Air Training Corps and sea cadets budgets was expended in the northern region year by year since 1985.

  United Kingdom servicemen and servicewomen recruitment Northern region (Percentage of United Kingdom total shown in brackets)

  Financial year

  All services

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1985–86

  2,680

  3321

  99

  1,706

  543

  Per cent.

  (9·3)

  (9·1)

  (9·8)

  (9·3)

  (9·4)

  1986–87

  2,721

  383

  110

  1,688

  540

  Per cent.

  (9·2)

  (8·1)

  (9·4)

  (9·5)

  (9·0)

  1987–88

  2,870

  414

  80

  1,916

  460

  Per cent.

  (9·6)

  (8·8)

  (8·6)

  (1·0)

  (8·9)

  1988–89

  2,830

  451

  80

  1,801

  498

  Per cent.

  (9·4)

  (9·4)

  (9·0)

  (9·3)

  (9·6)

  1989–90

  3,112

  386

  65

  2,000

  661

  Per cent.

  (9·6)

  (7·8)

  (6·4)

  (10·1)

  (9·9)

  1 Less QARNNS in 1985–86 as they were dealt with centrally.

  258
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The percentage of Territorial Army, Army cadet force, Air Training Corps and sea cadets manpower and administration cost which can be separately identified as being spent in the northern region are:

  Year

  TA Percentage

  ACF Percentage

  ATC Percentage

  Sea cadets Percentage

  1985–86

  7

  9

  5

  13

  1986–87

  7

  10

  6

  13

  1987–88

  6

  8

  6

  13

  1988–89

  7

  9

  3

  13

  1989–90

  7

  9

  3

  13

  The figures for the sea cadets reflect only the MOD-funded element, and do not include moneys provided by the Sea Cadet Association.

  Recruits
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of new recruits into Her Majesty's armed forces, Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, come from the northern region year by year since 1985.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The percentage of new recruits into the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army and Royal Air Force recruited in the northern region during the financial years 1985–86 to 1989–90 is set out in the table. Applications for entry as officers are dealt with centrally and regional breakdowns cannot be produced.

  United Kingdom servicemen and servicewomen recruitment United Kingdom total

  Financial year

  All services

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1985–86

  28,749

  3,645

  1,010

  18,321

  5,773

  1986–87

  29,632

  4,703

  1,171

  17,729

  6,029

  1987–88

  29,956

  4,682

  933

  19,189

  5,152

  1988–89

  30,256

  4,781

  890

  19,401

  5,184

  1989–90

  32,399

  4,945

  1,017

  19,778

  6,659

  Technology Exports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has any plans to inform companies involved in the manufacture and export of militarily sensitive technologies of their responsibilities when engaging in such export trade.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. Information and guidance on security export controls of strategic goods and technology are provided to United Kingdom exporters by the Department of Trade and Industry which is responsible for export licensing.

  End-user Certificates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that end-user certificates attached to arms exports and military technology sales are adhered to by importer states.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Sole-use clauses in sales agreements are designed to ensure that British defence equipment is not transferred to third parties without the agreement of the British Government.

  Computers (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to ensure the security of(a) his Department's computers in-house and (b) lap-top personal computers when used by civil servants outside his Department's offices.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not Government policy to disclose details of the protective security measures for safeguarding computers used for official purposes. To do so would be of assistance to potential attackers and therefore reduce the effectiveness of the measures. These measures have been kept under review and my right hon. Friend has approved revised rules covering the use of lap-top computers.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to introduce a Bill to acquire the common rights at Greenham Common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Crown Proceedings Act 1949
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give his best estimate of the number of prospective claims communicated to his Department and which were barred from action when section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1949 was in force.
  260
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No central records were kept of such prospective claims prior to 1978. However, 805 claims have been recorded as being received since late 1978.

  Gulf and Falklands Forces
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by month for the last three months the cost of maintaining(a) the Gulf forces and (b) the Falklands forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current full monthly operating cost of maintaining our forces in the Gulf and the Falklands for October, November and December 1990 is estimated to be as follows:

  Area

  October £million

  November £million

  December £million

  Gulf

  60

  70

  110

  Falklands

  5

  5

  5

  British Nuclear Test Veterans AB0
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of representations have been made by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and its members. As the Government have made clear on many occasions, we would be ready to pay compensation wherever the Crown's legal liability was established and where there was firm evidence to show that, on a balance of probabilities, ex-service personnel had suffered ill-health as a result of exposure to radiation during the course of their duties as members of the armed forces.

  Journalists (Gulf)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many journalists are accredited to armed forces facilities in the Gulf; and what restrictions are placed on their broadcasting or relaying of stories.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some 45 journalists are accredited to various British service units in the Gulf. In filing reports they are required to abide by published ground rules designed to protect the security and safety of allied forces. Where necessary, their reports may also be subject to vetting by military authorities to which they are attached.

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

Lord Sterling of Plaistow
Sir Jeffrey Maurice Sterling, Knight, KBE, having been created Baron Sterling of Plaistow, of Pall Mall in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Goodman and the Lord Jenkin of Roding.

Unemployment: Statistics
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the number of unemployed people at the latest available date and the number unemployed at the same date a year earlier.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, in December 1990 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,843,500 compared with 1,636,100 a year earlier.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is not the most disturbing feature of unemployment seen in the scale of the increase in the monthly figures? Will the Minister confirm that when unemployment rose for the first time in March last year, the increase was 4,000, and that last month the increase was 80,000? When the noble Earl compares our employment position with other countries, as he undoubtedly will, he will not find that acceleration. It has been said many times from this side of the House that high interest rates are the main cause of unemployment, and that a change from that thoroughly misguided policy is essential if we are to avoid reaching 2 million or 2.5 million unemployed. When will the Government accept that?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, this month's rise should be seen in context. It remains the case that the United Kingdom has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the European Community. Furthermore, unemployment is rising in most major industrialised countries, including the United States of America, Japan, Canada, Italy and France.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the prognostications for job losses in banking over the next two years? It is predicted that 300,000 jobs will be lost. When that figure is added to the loss of 78,000 jobs over the past year, we see a quite disastrous picture. Is he further aware that, according to press reports yesterday, the high interest rates at the present time are regarded as the main cause of banking redundancies?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I must correct the noble Baroness on her figure of 300,000. I think she means 30,000.
Baroness Turner of Camden: No.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, these figures must be seen in context. They do not detract from the Government's considerable longer term achievements in improving the performance of the labour market. Employment is currently at a record level.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, do not these figures indicate, however, the importance that nothing should be done to increase industrial costs, either by way of trade union action or legislation?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I can only agree with what my noble friend says.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, that was a terribly sad response from the Minister. Is he aware of the views of the Confederation of British Industry, banking experts and economists in the City that the rate of bankruptcies and the collapse of small businesses will increase enormously in the year ahead unless the Government change their policies? Does he not agree that this will also mean an equally massive increase in unemployment? What will the Government do about that?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government are committed to a substantial reduction in inflation during 1991 as that is the key to achieving long-term economic success. In the labour market, the extent and duration of any increase in unemployment will depend crucially on pay. Excessive wage settlements will damage our competitiveness and threaten jobs.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that neither the Government nor the CBI as institutions actually create jobs, but inflation certainly destroys them?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, again, I can only agree with what my noble friend says.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the Government are quite right in wanting to see inflation brought down substantially. Will the noble Earl tell us, as they have been pursuing a tight monetary policy, why inflation ever rose?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Autumn Statement forecast that the latter half of 1990 would be tough. Both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have indicated that unemployment is likely to rise further in the next few months. However, we expect to see in 1991 both a reduction in inflation, which is the Government's top priority, and a resumption of economic growth.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the unquestionably grave unemployment prospects in this country over the next year or so, why are the Government cutting the unemployment training budget by £200 million over the next two years?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, let us be under no illusion. The Government are far from content with the current level of unemployment and certainly do not wish to see unemployment rise.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, have the noble Earl and the Government considered the political implications of the latest jobless figures? Does he realise that the greatest number of job losses is now taking place in the South of England—the Tory heartland—and in service industry jobs? Under those circumstances, and indeed for their own survival, will the Government not listen to pleas—and proper pleas —from all parts of the economy to reduce interest rates immediately?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. He is indeed right about the unemployment figures in the South-East. However, employment in services still currently stands at well over 16 million.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble Lord agree that the current high interest rate programme is intended to reverse the crazy credit boom of recent years? It is having its effect and is bringing inflation down.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. The Government will reduce interest rates as soon as it is prudent to do so.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer the question asked by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition as to why, as recession deepens and unemployment increases, the Government have made such substantial cuts in the training budget?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, that question is particularly wide of the Question on the Order Paper as it refers to training.
Lord Blease: My Lords, is there not a sad lack of committed communications between industry and the Government? What do the Government intend to do to promote co-partnership between the Government and industry at national level, and between Government and industry at regional level? An honest commitment is needed by those three partners to bring about a realistic approach to our problems.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Ullswater said at the Dispatch Box last week in answer to a similar question, the Government will listen to all points of view, be they from industry or any side of your Lordships' House.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I realise that the Government are listening, but we need a commitment. What are the Government doing to obtain that commitment?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that point today. I shall come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as the Minister agreed with his noble friend who said that unemployment is effectively a policy of correcting the crazy credit boom of a few years ago, and as that crazy credit boom arose
224
from the failure of the Government's policies, does he not agree that the unemployed are now paying the price of the failure of the Government's economic policy?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the United Kingdom still has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the European Community. In 1979 United Kingdom unemployment was broadly similar to the EC average, but now it is considerably lower. Only Germany, Luxembourg and Portugal have a lower rate.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that few people will disagree with what he said about the need to pay attention to wages, although it would be much more credible if the Government said something about the obscene increases given to chairmen of companies, chief executives, and so on? Is he saying—because he has not answered the real question —that high interest rates have little or nothing to do with the present unemployment figures?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I have said before, high interest rates are a factor. On the noble Lord's first point about directors' salaries, it is up to individual companies to sort those out themselves.

Industry: Production and Investment
3 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures for UK industrial productions and investment.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, data for output of the production industries at constant prices are published in index form, with the average for 1985 equal to 100. The index for November was 106.7. Data for gross domestic fixed capital formation by the production industries alone are not available. But the figure for business investment in the third quarter of 1990 was £13.828 billion at constant prices.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister give the House the benefit of his knowledge and tell us how the figures which he has just given compare with those for the previous quarter—or, for the previous month if he wishes—and those for the same period in 1989?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the comparison with respect to 1989 is 109.8.
Lord Peston: My Lords, has the Minister seen the CBI figures which show that the United Kingdom invests less in fixed capital per employee than its major competitors? The confederation also states in its advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such an investment gap cannot be afforded in the light of the growing competitive pressures created by the single market and ERM membership. Do the Government agree with what the CBI has said about investment? More important, are they likely to do anything about investment in time to save British industry?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the reality, which may come as a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is that business investment has risen in real terms by about 50 per cent. since 1979. It is worth remembering that the average family in Britain is 31 per cent. better off now in real terms than was the case in 1979.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord may have difficulty in actually answering the question. However, perhaps I may put it to him again. There was a minor investment boom in the 1980s, as no doubt he is aware, which has now come to an end. The truth is that our industry is underequipped compared with those of our competitors. In an endeavour to defend themselves, it does the Government no good to fail to realise the needs of British industry. I am not pressing the point; it is the CBI that is doing so. Do not the Government feel that they should at least respond to the desires of their friends, even if they do not care for those of their critics?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if that investment boom was "minor", I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would be as surprised if he were to be run over by a double-decker bus.
Lord. Ezra: My Lords, following on from the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, have the Government in mind, in addition to the eventual reduction in interest rates, offering some other assistance to industry to stimulate investment? For example, have they given any thought to improving investment allowances?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is a fact that investment increased after the introduction of changes in the rules for capital allowances. It is also a fact that last year the motor car industry, against all odds, increased its level of exports to a record level not achieved since 1973. There has been virtually no fall in consumption. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was one of the great supporters of our entry into the European exchange rate mechanism. We are achieving stability under a system which was promoted by both sides of your Lordships' House.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in answering Questions, the Government's case is not strengthened by displays of either arrogance or ignorance? I refer especially to his previous answer.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, since I first came to your Lordships' House I have always been willing to accept that I might not have had the greatest education. However, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that it has never been a desire or an intention on my part ever to show arrogance in your Lorships' House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, with reference to Britain's entry into the ERM, does the noble Lord now accept that the stability to which he referred has come about as a result of falling production and rising unemployment? Does he accept that that is a result of our entry into the ERM?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, even more important, and above any entry into the ERM, is the
226
Government's desire to control inflation. That is our number one priority. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to my previous answer concerning output in the motor car industry: there is success and, at the same time, we are controlling the disease.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there should perhaps be some alternative to the policy of always increasing interest rates which, most of all, seems to hammer those people who have decided to buy their own home?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is worth pointing out that since we joined the ERM interest rates have been reduced by 1 per cent.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that both production and manufacturing investment are declining drastically? Perhaps he may recall the answer of the previous Front Bench spokesman on employment when referring to the long-term economic success of the country. Does not the decline in investment in manufacturing industry cast a a very grave shadow over our prospects for any kind of economic recovery or economic success in the future?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, business investment fell in the third quarter of 1990 by 1.9 per cent., which is the first fall since 1985.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the supplementary question put to him by my noble friend Lord Hatch referred specifically to manufacturing industry investment and not to the rather larger term that he used—namely, "business"—which encompasses a whole series of other services? Is he also aware that investment in manufacturing industry is now showing a drastic decline and that at present it is running at a lower level in real terms than it was in 1979?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always it is a pleasure to answer a question put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. However, I feel that I should draw his attention to the Question on the Order Paper which does not refer to manufacturing industry. It refers to figures for, "industrial productions and investment". Within that context, I have done my best to answer the Question.

Turtles and Terrapins: Imports
3.7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will restrict imports of turtles and terrapins to prevent salmonella infection and cruelty to animals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, there is no firm evidence about the extent of salmonella infection from turtles and terrapins, and the Government have no immediate plans to extend the existing import controls in respect of them. It is already an offence for traders to cause suffering or ill treat animals.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she say whether the enthusiasm shown at Christmas for certain mutant turtles, described in press reports as "turtle mania", has increased the demand in this country for these unfortunate creatures?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been an increase as a result of the mutant hero turtle mania. However, I also understand that the Nature Conservancy Council is aware of a growing number of colonies in the country, the largest of which consists of only about six terrapins. They are omnivors and will therefore eat weeds and indigenous species of insects. But it is true to say that a cold weather spell would have the effect of killing them off.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that any attempt to restrict the import of these creatures is now too late? Is she also aware that there are at least two species which are now feral in our waterways? Is she further aware that emys orbicularis, the European pond terrapin, thrives perfectly well as far north as northern Germany and that the American red-eared terrapin, which has also been released, has been seen happily disporting itself —and indeed, has been photographed—as far north as Wolverhampton?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not know what effect that final comment has on all my Scottish colleagues in the House. The banning of animals has more to do with endangered species. I should point out that terrapins are not an endangered species.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, can my noble friend try to alleviate my ignorance on the matter? Are not terrapins what I used to think of as tortoises? I understand that this particular class of animal covers a very wide range of size, shape and species.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not an authority on terrapins. My understanding is that they are not tortoises. They are more akin to turtles, and they swim.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the difference between a terrapin and a turtle well described by Rudyard Kipling in the Just-So Stories?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is indeed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government publicise the fact that turtles and terrapins are difficult pets to keep and, if abandoned, damage the local ecology?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The department writes continually to traders on the welfare of animals and ensures that people know their responsibilities under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Election Candidates: Party Expenditure
3.10 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions they have reached on the possibility of limiting party expenditure nationally
228
during a general election, as raised in the Home Office consultation document of 21st December 1989.
Lord Reay: My Lords, none yet. The consultation paper was the first stage of a review of the whole subject of candidates' expenses at elections. The second and final stage of the review is now under way. A consultative group has been set up under Home Office chairmanship and representatives of the main political parties and of local authority associations have been invited to participate. The group is expected to report to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary by Easter of this year.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full Answer. I am pleased that the Home Office is considering that serious anomaly by which candidates in their constituencies are severely limited as to the expenses that they can incur in an election while nationally there is no limit on what the parties spend. Does the Minister agree that it would be desirable for a conclusion to be reached on this important matter, especially given the early start that the Home Office made on it, well before a general election?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure that everyone necessarily shares the noble Lord's view that the present system requires to be changed. However, whenever the consultative group reports, the matter will be considered in the light of that review and the Government will make a decision.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that in the next general election campaign the Government will strictly observe the proper role of the government information services and will not use departmental resources to promote Conservative Party politics?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that we shall do so.

Business
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after the short debate on GATT and before that on health and safety at work, my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the missile attack on Israel.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of six minutes and in that of the noble Baroness 11 minutes.
It may be right for me to remind the House that by the time the figures six and 11, respectively, appear upon the screen above, that speech has already exceeded its allotted time.

GATT Negotiations
3.13 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to call attention to the negotiations taking place under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friends and I decided to invite your Lordships this afternoon to debate the current GATT negotiations, known for the purposes of shorthand as the Uruguay Round, not merely by way of respite from the Gulf crisis but because the outcome of the round may in the end prove to be, in terms of the world economy, as important as the result of the conflict in the Gulf. Even in times of war we must give attention to the problems of peace. That is what we shall do today.
The Uruguay Round, as your Lordships will be aware, was given that name because it opened in Uruguay—to be exact at Punta del Este—in 1986. It followed previous rounds —this is the eighth—which have had as a common objective the liberalisation of world trade. Its predecessor was the Tokyo Round, which took from 1973 to 1979 to negotiate. The Uruguay Round is trying to deal with many of the issues left unresolved by its Tokyo predecessor, such as non-tariff barriers, agriculture, subsidies and safeguards. But it has also introduced some new elements: trade in services, trade-related intellectual property rights and trade-related investment measures. It is a full agenda.
In introducing the debate, I should like to comment briefly, since that is all that I can do in the time available, on some of those issues and to reflect upon the possible consequences of a failure of the round. At the outset I wish to make it abundantly clear that although this is not in any sense a party matter, we on our side will work in whatever way we can for its success. I can only echo the words of the General Secretary of the TUC, who said in Tokyo last month:
"Jobs in British industry depend increasingly on the expansion of trade and the growth of the world economy as a whole".
That is a theme that I wish to develop.
There is no serious analysis of the post-war world economy of which I am aware that does not recognise the importance of the liberalisation of trade as a motor for growth. There is no analysis of third world economies of which I am aware that does not recognise how vital it is that the present round is successfully negotiated. But I am afraid that we are some way from achieving that desirable end at the moment. The round was due for completion at the end of 1990 to allow for the appropriate procedures to be followed in the United States Congress—known as "fast track" approval. The last bout of negotiation before the year end failed. We have to admit it; it failed. We are now near the absolute and final deadline for the fast track process to operate. That is why the next few weeks are so vital and why my party believed it to be right to bring the matter before your Lordships for debate today.
When I say "we" I have to make it clear to whom I am referring. It is no good me or any other noble Lord merely saying we want this, that or the other and expecting it to happen. Negotiations are conducted on our behalf and on behalf of all members of the European Community by the European Commission. So from the British point of view—the point of view of the House, if I may say so—there are, as it were, two steps. The first is to persuade our partners in the Community and then to help the Community negotiate constructively for all 12 member states. It would be naive to deny that both steps are fraught with considerable difficulty.
Apart from the politics, the issues themselves are of course extremely complex. In today's debate we shall not be able to do justice to them all. There are, after all, over 100 countries participating in the negotiations and 15 major areas upon which agreement is needed. I am sure that noble Lords who are to speak this afternoon will wish to roam over many of those areas, but I should like to identify the three issues which seem at present to be at the top of the agenda for negotiation and offer one or two thoughts on them.
The first, which will not surprise your Lordships, is agriculture. By way of background it has now become clear that the United States is determined to reduce not just its own agricultural subsidies, which are playing havoc with Federal finances, but, and perhaps more importantly, the subsidies paid to European and other farmers, and, in particular, subsidies paid to traders trading in European products on the international markets. The Cairns Group, as it is called, led by Australia, has the same objective, as indeed have those of the third world who wish to sell the produce of their lands; and let us not forget that in some cases it is the only product that they can export to the rich markets of the developed countries.
On the other hand (because in these matters there is always, I am afraid, another hand) in this country we must take note of the present dramatic decline in domestic agricultural incomes. It would be folly to destroy a major industry—which is by international standards extremely efficient—by reckless ill-considered action. I say, with all due deliberation, there is no doubt that the level of agricultural subsidy in Europe is too high. Moreover, we in Britain have a particular grievance. We are net contributors to the Community in agriculture and the CAP costs us dear. We pay through the CAP a social subsidy—there is no other word for it—to the small, continental, sometimes part-time, farmer. The Government, in my view, have been quite right to reject the most recent proposals for farm subsidies that have been put forward in Brussels in the past day or two.
But—and it is a large "but"—if we are to reduce subsidies to agriculture, it cannot be done indiscriminately and suddenly. We—by which I mean the Community—must be prepared to phase out subsidies over an extended period. If by doing so we can enhance the cleanliness of our environment and the beauty of our landscapes, that can only be a plus. However, it must be properly planned. Simple reliance

231
on market forces will give us all the wrong solutions: a bankrupt agricultural community and a much poorer environment.
Nevertheless, some deal on agriculture must emerge if the round, at this late hour, is to have any hope of success. It would be agreeable—I put it no higher than that—if the whole common agricultural policy could be renegotiated. The Government would gain great credit if they could manage that. But we must recognise that the agricultural problem is not the only problem that is an obstacle to successful negotiation of the round. Indeed, some countries have blown up the agricultural problem in order to obscure the difficulties that they have in other areas. There are still formidable problems in the negotiation of a liberalised trade pattern in services. In particular, the United States have shown themselves very protectionist when it comes to two sectors of vital importance to us in Britain: telecommunications and banking. Bilateral deals in these sectors are apparently on the agenda, quite contrary to the spirit of GATT.
Therefore, the second issue to be addressed, the second major obstacle, is how to achieve freer trade in services. Ideally, this means quite simply freedom of establishment in all countries for service companies. We recognise that that will not be achieved overnight. Many third world countries, not to mention the United States and Japan, are instinctively hostile to the idea. But if we are to give on agriculture then they must give on other sectors. There is a trade off between the two issues.
The third issue that I wish to talk about is the integration of the textile and clothing trade into the general agreement. To date, as your Lordships will be aware, this trade has been regulated by the Multi Fibre Arrangement which has worked well in providing a framework for the restructuring of the textile industry worldwide. If the MFA is to be discarded—and it is perfectly reasonable to argue that it should be—there must be adequate safeguards in the form of a longish phasing out period. This is particularly important for us in Britain where we have nearly half a million people employed in the industry, frequently concentrated geographically in the north of England.
I have picked out these three issues not because they are necessarily the most important objectively, but because they give the most trouble in negotiations. There are many other points on which agreement is —or perhaps I should say was —near: protection of intellectual property, prohibition of local content requirements in inward investment, the settlement of disputes and the strengthening of the rules on what safeguards are available to signatories to the agreement. The progress on these issues seemed to form the basis for a sensible package if the three major problems that I have outlined could be solved.
However, alas, they were not solved. Last month was due to be the final month of negotiations; it ended in failure. The situation now is that we must try, the Community or the participants must try, to pick up the pieces. The simple fact is that we must come up
232
with a better package on agriculture. That means that Germany particularly, and France as well, must be prepared to exercise the qualities of leadership for which we look. The German elections are now out of the way but it must be a major German and French contribution to the package that will make it successful.
I said that I would talk a little about the consequences of failure. I do not believe that I am over-dramatising the situation if I say plainly that those consequences would be quite disastrous. They would be disastrous for growth in the world economy, since there is no doubt at all that failure would spark off a trade war, as well as the formation of protectionist blocks such as the North America-Mexico block and, let us face it, perhaps the European Community. Not only would world trade suffer, but the consequential effects on employment in the advanced countries and on life itself in many of the poorer areas of the world hardly bear thinking about. Furthermore, we parochially in Britain would be major sufferers since a high proportion of our national product goes for export and always has done.
Thus I believe it is in everyone's interest to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion. But in this matter there is something more than simple self-interest. What is at issue is the kind of world we wish to live in. Is it to be a world that lapses into protectionism, lives by beggar-my-neighbour politics, where the richer countries show no responsibility at all for their poorer brothers? We had that kind of world in the 1930s and we know where it led us. Or is it to be a world in which we have the political will to reach over frontiers and across seas and to recognise that, with the advance of technology, the world economy is and must be single and indivisible, and that the world economic product must be shared equitably among all its inhabitants?
That is the underlying, rather philosophical question posed by the GATT negotiations that are at present taking place. However, unless that underlying question is recognised, I am very much afraid that the technical matters will reassert themselves and we shall fall at the last hurdle. It is to encourage the Government to redouble their efforts to see that this does not happen that we have the debate this afternoon. I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for bringing before your Lordships' House this subject which I believe to be of the greatest importance in the world, certainly for the next decade. The noble Lord must be right in saying that this cuts across party lines for I must confess that rarely have I agreed with so much of what he said this afternoon.
I raised this matter previously in your Lordships' House at the time of our debate on the Queen's Speech. I fear that all the events which at that time I was afraid would happen have now come to pass. I believe that the future of the GATT Round is an event far more important than the events which we read about day after day in the papers or watch hour after

233
hour happening in the Gulf. That will be settled, I hope, no matter how awful and terrible the task, in the months to come. Before we take the chance of putting GATT in jeopardy, we should consider, first, the benefits that it has brought us and, secondly, the penalties which we shall pay if we fail.
GATT has existed for 43 years. From 1947 until the end of the Tokyo Round we have succeeded, mainly as a result of GATT, in reducing world tariffs from an average level of 40 per cent. to 5 per cent. In that time the volume of world trade increased eightfold. I am told by those who can calculate these matters that another 30 per cent. reduction in the existing levels of tariffs would boost European Community exports by 1.5 per cent. and create some 340,000 jobs.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development states that the cost to the EC taxpayers of the common agricultural policy is close to 100 billion dollars a day. That is equivalent to the gross domestic product of Denmark for one year. When a halt was called in the talks in the European Community for any changes in the agricultural policy in the early part of December, it was more effective than any Patriot missile in bringing down the negotiations. What are the penalties of failure? To obtain the closest parallel we must go back to the early months of 1930 when the Americans introduced the Smoot Hawley Bill which effectively made the United States a protectionist nation. World trade in manufactures fell by 40 per cent. and world manufacturing output fell by 35 per cent. in three years alone. All of us know well enough what unemployment, misery and degradation resulted from those events. I believe that that situation led directly to the more awful decade of the 1940s. Lest we in this country think that all that is academic, I remind the House that today we still export more per capita of manufactured goods than Japan. We are probably more dependent upon exports than any other nation in the world for our survival and our standard of living.
The situation in the Gulf has certainly complicated the negotiations. If it were not for the Gulf, the negotiations would be headline news day after day. However, I believe the situation in the Gulf has also increased the stakes, for it has adversely affected the penalties of failure. Over the past few months I have spent a considerable amount of time in the United States. I was there only last week for a few days. Many people there, on the Hill and elsewhere, are looking at the contribution which Japan and Germany have made to the coalition forces in the Gulf. People have been telling me that Japan for one is a beneficiary of a free trade in oil and that Japan and Germany are probably the greatest beneficiaries in the world of a free track in manufactured goods.
This time we do not have the luxury of the seven years which were taken up by the Tokyo Round. American legislation is on a fast track. That effectively means that the Senate and the House of Representatives have to approve the round of negotiations as a whole or not at all. The time limit for doing that expires at the end of February. If we do not have an agreement that can effectively pass through
234
Congress by the end of February, the Senate and the House of Representatives will cherry-pick away. Enormous pressure is mounting every day —it will increase even more when land fighting breaks out in the Gulf—for the United States to adopt a protective and defensive policy in the negotiations.
Is there a prospect of success? The penalties of failure are far too high. The existing common agricultural policy costs each family of four in the EC £13.50 per week on top of their food bills. That has to be measured against an average food budget of no more than £40 to £45 per week. The costs of the common agricultural policy are felt throughout the whole of Europe and the effect on poor countries is even greater.
Half of Europe's gross domestic product comes from service industries. Some 60 per cent. of Europeans are employed in the service industries, but that area is being placed in jeopardy. The multi-fibre agreement adds £70 per year to the clothing bills of each family of four in this country. It has been calculated that if we can conclude this round of talks successfully, the Community exports to the United States and to Japan would each increase by over 2.5 billion dollars over the next five years.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Lord who opened the debate said that we were placing certain matters in jeopardy, were they referring to Britain or to the European Community? If the noble Lords were referring to the European Community, we should try to do something about it.
Lord Young of Graf ham: My Lords, I must make it quite clear that I was referring to the civilised and uncivilised peoples of the world. It is the 104 nations gathered together for the GATT talks which must face the consequences of what they are doing. Time is limited, but I must conclude by saying that as the terrible and awful events are being played out in the Gulf today, the real determinant of peace and prosperity in the world is being decided behind closed doors in Geneva. I hope that a signal can go out to those nations in Geneva from your Lordships' House. Unless we can put these negotiations back on the rails and reach a successful conclusion, I fear that the 1990s and the first decade of the next century may replay the awful saga of the 1930s and the 1940s.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the main difficulty in this matter appears to be the position of agriculture, which is holding up progress in the negotiations. We on these Benches realise that the talks are enormously important for the future of world trade and world prosperity. As a farmer I fully appreciate the importance of the talks, as do the other farmers of this country. We know that the talks must succeed.
I wish to examine the position of farmers throughout Europe in regard to the common agricultural policy. I wish to determine what can be done to alleviate the position of farmers as we are

235
talking in terms of reducing support for farmers by a figure of approximately 40 per cent. That is a savage blow for any industry to face.
We need to examine the attitude of the United States. That nation is enormously pious with regard to EC subsidies when one considers that America subsidies agriculture and the export of food on to world markets to a considerable extent. The best figures I have found have been those produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That body has worked out a formula which is referred to as the producer subsidy equivalent. The formula takes into account tariffs, the taxpayer and everything else. It has been broken down into subsidies per farmer. The figures are interesting and relevant. Australia forms part of the Cairns Group. The subsidy per farmer there is 4,000 dollars. In Canada the subsidy is 13,000 dollars, while in Finland it is 26,000 dollars. In Japan it is 15,000 dollars and in Norway it is 32,000 dollars. In Sweden it is 25,000 dollars; in Switzerland it is 26,000 dollars and in the United States of America it is 20,000 dollars. New Zealand is the only honest country in the Cairns Group and its subsidy is 2,000 dollars per farmer. The subsidy in the EC is 8,000 dollars. Those figures show that the problem is a worldwide one. It is not confined to the EC. That fact must be brought home to the US in the negotiations as that nation is the main pusher for a solution to the problem of oversubsidisation of the farming industry.
I happily admit that the failure of the Council of Ministers to follow the advice of the Commission as prices rose throughout the Community has in itself generated extra costs. A great deal of correction is needed in the EC at the moment. We must also realise that we in Europe are entitled to produce our own food and to protect our farmers. However, we are not entitled to produce a surplus with which to depress world market prices and ruin many third world farmers and whole countries. I firmly believe that such a practice is not permissible. The objective that we should set ourselves in the EC should be to reduce our production so that we produce what we need and can use ourselves, plus a reasonable carry over. If that happened we should solve the problem and we should not disadvantage the third world.
There is a lot of talk about the big farmer who is wallowing in money and drives a Bentley, and so on, and that the small farmer should receive the money. That is nonsense. In Europe a big farmer is considered to be someone with more than 100 acres. However, the man in the agricultural industry who is hardest hit is not the small part-time farmer who has another job. It is the man trying to make a living on between 100 and 200 acres. It is nearly impossible for him to make a living which is as good as that of the average industrial worker in this country.
There are many programmes in front of us to deal with the position but no definite policy. I suggest that the policy is a simple one. We have to reduce prices over a period of time, but we have to do so in a manner which is fair. We should use the present EC budget to alleviate the undoubted distress which will be caused
236
to a great many people in the farming community. If we have a level playing field the best farmers can produce and make a living. We should do so in such a way that we preserve the land so that it can be used if the droughts which have reduced world stocks below the safety level in the past five years return.
If we do that I believe that we might solve the problem. We might produce an agricultural industry which is competent. However, the policy will need to be thought out and applied sympathetically over a period of years. If that happens there should be every prospect of industrial prosperity.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, despite the clarity of the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I cannot help saying that the Uruguay Round has been described as the most complex set of trade negotiations of the post-war era. Therefore, it seems unwise for the Churches to make any contribution and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I rise to my feet to say a few words. As the negotiations have proceeded over the past four years they have raised important issues of social justice and human responsibility which the Churches cannot ignore—social justice because trade is the lifeblood of many of the world's poorest countries and vital to their well-being; human responsibility because policies in the industrial nations, including our own, mould the external trading environment of the South.
My concern in this subject was prompted by a meeting which I had in this House some four years ago with the Anglican Bishop of Jamaica. We discussed the possibility of establishing a partnership between my diocese of St. Albans and some dioceses in the Caribbean, of which Jamaica was one. To my surprise his reaction was to say that although we could have a friendship expressed in reciprocal visits, correspondence and prayer, there could be no partnership unless we could play our part in seeking justice for the people of Jamaica in the face of massive debt problems and trade sanctions which effectively crippled his country's ability to grow to maturity and which ground many of his people into a humiliating poverty.
Therefore my modest and highly amateur contribution to this debate is to express my concern that the Uruguay Round may miss a vital opportunity to change the present inequality in international economic relations and that its outcome may undermine rather than enhance the prospects for sustainable economic growth and food security in developing countries which are in an even worse plight than Jamaica.
For the world's poorest countries the past 10 years have been a lost decade. It has been a decade of falling living standards, deteriorating human welfare and declining investment. Of all the indices confirming that worsening human situation perhaps the most graphic is the rise in infant mortality evident throughout the developing world. According to UNICEF the reversal caused by the economic slow-down was claiming the lives of an additional 10,000 African children daily at the end of the 1980s

237
—though we can easily be blinded by figures that represent a large number of families in the congregations of my brother bishops.
It is not for me to discuss the reasons for that or the appropriate strategies for recovery. However, there is a widespread consensus that a worsening trade environment has played a major role in the crisis and its improvement is essential to renewed growth. The one plea that I want to make is to stress the importance of the industrialised countries undertaking substantial initiatives to address those twin problems of commodity trade and debt.
Perhaps I may make a specific reference to agriculture, which, as has already been said, is the most contentious item of unfinished business in the talks. From the outset the GATT deliberations on farming policy and reform have been dominated by the United States and the European Community. Their failure to overcome their differences remains the greatest obstacle to a settlement.
Paradoxically, however, agriculture is of relatively marginal significance to the economies of the United States and the European Community, accounting for about 4 per cent. of employment and GDP. That contrasts sharply with the situation in developing countries where it typically accounts for more than 60 per cent. of employment and a quarter of GDP. Despite that fact developing countries, so I am told, have had almost no influence on the GATT agricultural trade negotiations. The fact that a reformed GATT will for the first time exercise a major influence on their farm policies surely makes that unacceptable.
Last month in Brussels Church leaders from around the world rejected the free market position as a basis for GATT rules extending to developing country agriculture. A statement issued by the European Ecumenical Commission for Development, endorsed by the World Council of Churches, the Caribbean Council of Churches and a number of bishop; and archbishops, both Catholic and Protestant, from Europe, North America and Africa, urged the negotiators to reflect on the very different circumstances which face farmers in the North and in the South. The statement said:
"As Christians, we cannot accept that the most basic right of the human community, the right to food, or our collective responsibility to prevent hunger, should be subordinated to … the arithmetic of the market place".
The statement went on to urge governments in the North to recognise the distinction between subsidies such as those applied in the United States which result in over-production and distorted world markets and subsidies in the South which are aimed at enhancing food self-reliance and protecting employment. With the Geneva talks resuming against a background of famine in sub-Saharan Africa and growing malnutrition elsewhere, that is a distinction which I believe the GATT must accept as a basis for securing the most basic of all human rights—the right to food and thus to life itself.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I do not often find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. However, in his reference to the long-term consequences of a failure of the GATT negotiations he was dead right. The consequences will be most grave for the world as a whole, particularly for third world countries and not least for ourselves. It is important that we should realise the reasons for the breakdown of the negotiations on 7th December last year.
There were references by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel to the outstanding matters relating to the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and the necessity for a freeing up in the financial services area. Of course, the latter occupies only an insignificant amount in terms of world exports (about 7 per cent.), and even though progress there is desirable it is obviously not of such vital importance as the trade in merchandise.
There can be no doubt that the negotiations broke down quite simply because of the European attitude as expressed by its representatives in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, has already referred to its cost to us of £15 per week per family of four. He could also have mentioned the fiscal cost to us in terms of £2,000 million per annum of extra taxation out of the Consolidated Fund. There can be no doubt that it is the breakdown over the whole structure of the CAP that is at stake.
As The Times put it in its issue of 8th December:
"The EC's refusal to dismantle the fraud-ridden market-rigging cartel it calls the common agricultural policy … drove the talks on to the rocks. The world is poised to enter a cycle of protectionism and 'managed' trade which will exact a dreadful price in jobs, inflated consumer prices and market opportunities, and cripple the economic advance of the Third World and Eastern Europe".
The Times puts it in even more moderate terms than I would in normal circumstances.
The CAP as such has never had any friends in this House who are prepared to justify its structure or results. In fact, the House has been almost unanimous in its condemnation of the whole structure of the CAP, and that is also true in the case of the European Parliament. Everybody agreed that it was wrong but nobody was prepared to do anything about it.
In the limited time at my disposal I propose to make a few suggestions as to what might conceivably be done. Obviously it is no good looking to the Council of Ministers under conditions where by a qualified majority the Germans and the French together would be quite sufficient to secure any rejection of the CAP's amendment, or where by unanimous vote even the vote of Luxembourg would be sufficient to veto any change. It is quite clear that given its present mood, particularly in France and, I regret to say, in the United Kingdom, the attitude of the Council is most unlikely to change. We cannot change the situation there.
What about the Commission? The Commission has had a go, but I cannot recall M. Jacques Delors breaking his deafening silence over the past two months to make any constructive suggestion for resolution of the problem, although there has been

239
some revised plan which according to today's press our Minister of Agriculture and the French have already rejected. Quite clearly, we are unable to look for very much help from the Commission itself, despite the fact that the CAP contributes only 3 per cent. to EEC GDP at an annual cost of 100 billion dollars.
Can we expect anything from the European Parliament? I have listened to many speeches in the European Parliament on the necessity of reform, but it cannot initiate any proposals; it can only discuss and act on such proposals as the Commission permit it to. In any case, out of the 518 Members, only 300 (some 60 per cent.) take an active part in the proceedings of the Parliament as a whole. Indeed, on the Motion on the Gulf last week, 311 out of the 518 turned up.
We come back to the Government. What can the Government do? The Government can and should tackle the matter root and branch. At the moment the Government are involved in an intergovernmental conference in which amendments are sought to the Treaty of Rome. They should use their power now to insist on amendments to Articles 38 to 47 of the Treaty of Rome and go for a radical restructuring of the whole of the common agricultural policy. As a Government, they should adopt at home such suitable income support measures as are necessary for the preservation of our agricultural community and the standard of life to which it is entitled.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for bringing this debate before the House today. As a former agriculture minister I will resist the temptation to become involved in that part of the discussion which is already occupying your Lordships, but I declare an interest as a director of a United Kingdom textile company which relies heavily upon exports of high-quality goods. It is to that area—the area to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams referred—that I wish to address my remarks.
The importance of the GATT Round to the textile industry in Great Britain cannot be over-emphasised. We need to ensure free and fair competition throughout the industrialised world in this regard. As has already been said, the price of failure could mean real problems for that industry. Time is running out. The Congress deadline for report by 1st March, if the fast track approach is to have any success, is very important for this House and, beyond this House, for every party to these negotiations to understand. I refer to the Punta del Este Declaration of 1986 that the textile and clothing trade should be integrated into GATT, which is EC-speak for phasing out the MFA. I do not object to that. I congratulate the Government on that declaration and the work they did to get that declaration, but it was based on the strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister in replying to this debate will give us an assurance that that declared intention has not been overcome by events.
240
United Kingdom industry will compete on free and fair terms, but where is the fairness in excessive tariff rates, which for the export of some textile goods to Australia are more than 50 per cent? There are penal import duties (now running at 36.1 per cent.) on the United Kingdom export of cloth to the United States, as I have known only too well to my cost for many years. South Korea's £2.5 billion subsidy scheme for textile and clothing does not seem to me to be free and fair when it comes to competition in the ultimate result. There is also Turkey, a producer which gets subsidies and cotton supplies at below world prices. I do not want to see any eleventh-hour compromise which torpedoes that declaration on strengthened rules and disciplines.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that if the MFA is to be phased out, let us do it on a timescale to which the industry itself can adjust; let us not bring it in at a politician's whim and in circumstances where the industry has had no time to adjust. But I believe it is more important still that effective means of enforcing and respecting those strengthened GATT rules are agreed and applied. We are talking about an industry which exports £4.5 billion worth of goods. It is not an old-fashioned and outdated industry any more. It is an industry which produces some of the finest quality goods in the world.
I believe that we have a fight on our hands. That fight may well be most difficult with the strong developed countries in the world. In the end, they could undoubtedly be the biggest stumbling blocks to achieving success in free and fair competition for industry in this country and many others.
4 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, nobody can doubt that the breakdown in the GATT talks was very worrying and that a successful resumption is critical to the future welfare of world trade. If GATT finally collapses, there will be acute danger of the world drifting into three protectionist blocs—North America, Europe and Japan—with the poor South excluded, and a growing danger of trade wars between the blocs.
As the world slips into recession it is inevitable that calls for protection will grow. We must resist them. In fact trade liberalisation offers the best non-inflationary way to restore growth to the world economy. It is especially in the interests of Britain which, as a major exporter, is dependent on international trade for its economic prosperity.
Certain items under discussion in the Uruguay Round also offer great benefits to us. I have in mind the proposed liberalisation of services, the proposals for intellectual property, and of course any prospect of modifying sensibly the European agricultural policy (which was at the heart of the breakdown in the talks in December). The gaps between the sides on agriculture remain great. It is tempting to join the USA and perhaps some others in denouncing the EC for its inflexibility. It is especially tempting to those who believe that European agricultural policy contains much nonsense and should be radically changed. However, having accepted all the familiar

241
sins of European agriculture, it does not follow that the EC should be battered into massive concessions; nor is there in reality any prospect of that happening in the short run. If the resumed talks depend on that, they will fail.
The central political point to remember (and for the USA to bear in mind) is that the EC is in a very difficult negotiating position on agriculture. The Commission represents twelve partners with very different interests who often basically disagree on agriculture policy. Having reached a precariously agreed position, it is difficult to become flexible in the GATT negotiations without splitting the unity of the EC. That is the political reality.
Quite apart from the structural problem, which will persist, is a profound problem relating to policy; namely, that the EC is being pressed—as we ourselves press it—to make changes in its fundamental agricultural support system. I and many other noble Lords would welcome such changes. But that is not the point at this moment. The political fact is that the Commission in Brussels does not yet have a mandate for such fundamental changes. The Government should take this opportunity to press for such changes, but we must accept that countries such as Ireland, France and Germany will not easily give up the benefits of the present system. The USA must accept that reality in the present talks. They must not have exaggerated expectations. They should recognise that demands for cuts of 90 per cent. in subsidies and 75 per cent. in farm support are probably unrealistic.
On a more positive note, and looking for ways forward, we should be actively thinking—there has been some thinking already—of policies which will meet some of the genuine anxieties of our EC partners who support the present system, in order to make it possible for them to accept change. I have little sympathy for the French desire to keep their so-called small farmers comfortably subsidised by the British taxpayer. We need a stricter definition of what is a genuine small farmer. But I sympathise with the French fear, which is shared in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, parts of Italy and Germany, that genuine rural life will be destroyed if we do not continue to give significant agricultural support. However, we need to address that problem with particular solutions. Current thinking about setting aside farmland to protect the environment and encourage leisure employment in rural society is promising.
Whereas the EC has suffered most attacks for the failure of the talks so far, we should note that the negotiating position of the United States is not wholly virtuous. Interestingly, the Japanese representative put most blame for the breakdown on the United States. One particular problem of the December talks was the regrettably hectoring and bullying tone of the United States trade representative, Carla Hills. Perhaps we can gently indicate to our American allies that a more diplomatic style would help the talks along and what we might call the Schwarzkopf approach is more appropriate to Baghdad than to Brussels.
Nor must we forget the dilemma for the third world. Poor agricultural countries often suffer in these
242
talks. We should remember that to a poor developing country the liberalisation of trade may mean more of a threat than a promise. Poor agricultural countries need to protect their food production. Developing countries need protection in the services field. How can they ever develop indigenous banking or computing facilities if the American, European and Japanese giants are already there on the ground?
However, our main anxiety is that the GATT talks should resume successfully. It will require compromise and I trust that our Government will put maximum pressure on our EC partners and our American allies to achieve that aim. The best hopes for compromise seem to lie in the Europeans applying specific limits to food exports, allowing greater food imports and perhaps in a move away from variable levies toward fixed tariffs. As for the United States, they must be more flexible and less bullying. They must be more realistic in their demands for concessions from the EC. Her Majesty's Government must use their special relationship with Washington to press for that. Then it is to be hoped that we can achieve success which in the long term, as my noble friend Lord Williams rightly said, may be as important as success in the other more dramatic battles in the Middle East.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, there is an obvious flaw in the drafting of the Motion. It refers to negotiations taking place, yet the whole problem is that negotiations are not taking place. They have been deadlocked. They have been deadlocked primarily because of disputes over the international trade in agricultural products.
I hold no brief for the United States of America. It is a highly protectionist country. It shows scant regard for its obligations under the GATT. Its negotiating tactics leave much to be desired and it subsidises its own agriculture to a very substantial degree. Nevertheless it is absolutely clear that unless the question of subsidisation of agriculture is addressed and solved, there is no hope of relaunching the negotiations and achieving success.
The problem is perfectly simple: namely, that prices in the Community have been set at an excessive level. That leads to excessive production. The excessive production is reflected in stockpiles. The stockpiles can be sold only by heavy subsidisation. That disrupts international trade and gives rise to the kind of problems that we face.
The extent of the reductions that would be necessary in order to clear the market—that is, to achieve a balance between production and consumption—are very great indeed. The proposals that were tentatively put forward over the weekend by the Commission and on which a discussion started in the Council of Ministers yesterday—although it had to be adjourned because of a certain tragic event—envisage a 50 per cent. reduction in the guaranteed price for wheat, a 30 to 40 per cent. reduction in the price of other cereals, a 15 per cent. reduction in the price of butter and a 10 per cent. reduction in the price of milk. Let me say that these proposals were put forward not in the context of the GATT but in the context of time

243
to avoid a further financial crisis facing the Community. But the reductions that would be necessary to achieve a market clearing basis for the GATT negotiations would be every bit as big as this.
The effect of these reductions, which would clearly have to be spread over time, would be appalling for agriculture in this country and probably in many other countries is concerned. The problem so far as we are concerned is that successive governments in this country, ever since we joined the Community, have tried to face both ways at once. They have denounced the CAP for excessive expenditure and they have given their own farmers every possible encouragement to expand their production in order to take advantage of this huge flow of fool's gold which they could see running in front of them. The effect has been greatly to exacerbate the problem in the Community itself.
When we joined we were 50 per cent. self-sufficient in temperate foodstuffs. Today we are 100 per cent. self-sufficient in temperate foodstuffs. In effect, we have greatly contributed to the build-up of the surpluses ourselves. But in addition we have ploughed up our grasslands, we have extended agriculture into land not suited for it and we have used vast quantities of fertiliser which have had all sorts of deleterious effects. This has driven up the price of land, it has driven up rents and it has meant that the farmers are now heavily in debt to the banks.
The farming industry in this country already faces a financial crisis. The position will become infinitely worse if the problem is addressed in the way that it has to be addressed. Nevertheless there will be no solution if we back away from the necessity of dealing with it. Anything which has to be done to protect the individual farmer, whether in this country or in the Community generally, must be in a form in which does not encourage additional production.
The greatest problem of all here is that these matters are dealt with by agriculture ministers and the duty of an agriculture minister is to look after the interests of the farmers, not to look after the national interest. This is true not only in this country; it is true in every other country as well. In 1982, when I was talking to "Mac" Baldridge who was then the Secretary of Commerce in the United States, he said,
"These problems will never be solved as long as they are left to ministers. At the end of the day they will have to go to the heads of government to be solved".
That, I believe, is what will have to be done.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in my six minutes I would say, first, that the refusal of the EC to make more than inch-like concessions on the common agricultural policy is the real obstacle at this moment to a new GATT agreement. Of course the United States has made difficulties over financial services and other things. But, though they are important, they represent only a fraction of the total value of trade damaged by the common agricultural policy.
The primary harm done by the CAP is not the surpluses and subsidies about which we hear so much but rather—and here I am glad to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—the excessively high prices
244
caused by import restrictions, quotas and outrageously heavy import levies which almost prevent food from the outside world being imported into the EC at all. There are no surpluses in the real sense of more food being produced than people can consume. The trouble is that the prices are so high that the consumer cannot buy the food that he otherwise would buy.
The United Kingdom is of course hit worst of all. In a world of free trade the UK would import very little food at all from the EC. But we are now forced to buy high priced EC food by this whole system of import levies and quotas and, in the case of Australian and New Zealand food, outright restrictions and vetoes on imports. In the 1980s, on average, food cost the EC consumer 70 per cent. more than consumers outside.
In recent years the import levy in the UK for wheat and barley stood at 150 per cent. of the import price, for meat it was over 50 per cent. and for dairy products it was as high as 200 per cent.; and this, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said earlier today, is costing the UK consumer something like £4 or £5 per week per head of the whole population in this country. Altogether the CAP is costing the EC taxpayer about £20 billion sterling per year. Nor is it true that subsidies in themselves are the cause of the evil. There is all the difference in the world between the deficiency payment or the income support paid to the farmer, which works on the whole as a subsidy to the home consumer, and a subsidy to the exporter to sell his goods abroad below world prices with great damage to other countries.
The EC subsidies, which they politely call "restitutions', are the consequence—I think that the noble Lord will agree with me here—of the intolerably high internal prices which generate the apparent surpluses, which then have to be sold abroad at one-half or even one-quarter of the EC prices. The EC subsidies are almost wholly of this kind.
The real choice, as I see it, from the farming point of view is between supporting the farming community by deficiency payments or income support, and import restrictions and taxations which force up prices. Indeed, the deficiency payments in force in this country right through from 1947 to 1972 allowed free importing and ensured low world prices for the consumer and a fair living for the efficient farmer at the same time.
I believe therefore that the interests of the UK in these crucial negotiations are very much in line with those of the United States and of the other great food exporting countries in the Cairns Group. For it is not just the United States today which is lined up with the Cairns Group against EC protectionism but a number of other countries, including Canada, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and indeed some third world countries.
Our interests in the UK, whatever is true of the EC, are almost wholly identical with this large and representative group of countries. However, I fear that the Government have given too much the impression in these negotiations, particularly the present Minister of Agriculture, that they have been bullied by EC

245
protectionist pressure onto the wrong side and have come very near to fighting for the narrow interests involved against most of the rest of the world.
I hope that that is not true. But the Government can prove that it is not true by fighting vigorously, even at this twelfth hour, in the resumed negotiations —and I presume that they will be resumed—for a far more liberal solution and for really major cuts, no doubt over a period, in EC price levels which alone will make a new GATT possible. But there is very little time left.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on having introduced this debate because it is a most important subject to us all. I agree with a great deal of what he said, although not all of it. He said that there were three particularly sensitive issues and I have an interest to declare, either past or present, in two of them: in farming, where I have a small interest in a farming partnership, and in banking, where I had some previous involvement. However, there is not time in six minutes to put right the problems involved in both major sectors, and so I shall confine myself to agriculture.
My concern over what the noble Lord has said, and which has been echoed in other places if not in here this afternoon, is that, to use his words, there must be "a trade off''. It worries me that in order to secure the agreement which we seek someone has to suffer and something must be sacrificed. The general message which has come from many quarters, both today here and from other quarters, is that it is agriculture that must be sacrificed to reach this agreement.
I believe that is a danger of which we should be aware, and certainly it is one which I feared when earlier our Government offered a 30 per cent. reduction in subsidies, over a period, which was not agreed by the other members of the Community and which of course was turned down by the United States of America and the Cairns Group. In isolation we are doing that at a time when farming is going through a tremendously depressed period.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said—and of course he was right—that we need to get agreement from two sectors: from the Community and from GATT. Neither of those will be easy. Within the Community we have had and continue to have massive problems under the CAP. I am convinced that this country has failed to get its fair share of what has been going round, whether it be excessive or not, for a long time. We have only to look at what has happened and is still happening as regards the green pound where, despite the efforts made last year by the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Gummer, to get some reduction and some alleviation of the penalty, it still will be the end of 1992 before we get on level terms.
Perhaps I ought to correct—if I am right, as I think I am —something that was said by my noble friend Lord Cockfield a few moment ago when he referred to this country as being self-sufficient in food. According to the ministry publication, Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1990, which has just been issued, the UK
246
self-sufficiency of food, as a percentage of all food, is 56 per cent., and of indigenous-type food and feed is only 73.3 per cent.—not, as I understand it, the 100 per cent. to which my noble friend referred. I think it is important, if I am right, that that point should be made.
The United Kingdom agriculture industry is going through a very depressed time. This year alone, as the book shows, 6,000 farmers have left the land. Farming incomes are down by 22 per cent. These are very severe blows on an industry which was already suffering, however prosperous it may have been in the past. I shall not attempt to apportion blame or to say what the remedy might be as between the CAP or GATT or indeed the United Kingdom Government, but I should like in the few moments I have left to say something about the importance of British agriculture to our economy.
I believe it is too often taken for granted and perhaps too often overlooked as regards what it does contribute. I believe we have one of the most, if not the most, efficient agriculture industries in the world. Certainly we employ only 2 per cent. of the population, or something just over that, whereas Germany employs more than 5 per cent. and France nearly 7 per cent.; yet in rural areas the population dependent directly or indirectly upon agriculture varies between 15 and 30 per cent.—so many cities the whole length and breadth of the country, such as Lincoln and York, Market Harborough and the like, are dependent upon a prosperous agriculture. Woe betide any government who forget that message and allow the industry to go into a deep recession.
What other industry in the country can show a labour productivity to match that of agriculture? What other industry over 10 years has kept price increases to something under 40 per cent. of the general increase in the RPI? During that period water has gone up 162 per cent. and rail by 142 per cent. The RPI has gone up by 103 per cent. and yet food at the farmer's gate has gone up by only 44 per cent. Food represents a very small part of the total household budget. Out of a total expenditure on food and drink of more than £78 billion, food at farmer's gate prices represents, at gross product output, something like £7 billion. Prices for food from the farmer's gate have tended to go down and down in real terms and they have to be compared with prices which appear in the shops. As an illustration of that, today beef prices are down very substantially whereas the price of beef in the supermarkets has gone up. Agriculture and the farmer must not be blamed for that.
I see that my time is up, but I should like to urge that the Government, in their continuing negotiations in GATT and within the Community, are mindful of the contribution made by UK agriculture to our economy and that because of its importance it will be allowed to prosper.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the crisis arising from the suspension of the GATT talks has focused on agriculture as that appeared to be the crucial issue causing the suspension of the talks. However, like

247
other noble Lords, I believe other interests were also at work, and not least in the United States, which were tending to hide behind the agricultural issue.
I want to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, and talk about the position of the textile and clothing industry in the light of the phasing out of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement in July of this year. Because of past crises in the textile industry many people in this country seem to think that there is no such thing as the United Kingdom textile industry left. That is quite wrong. On the contrary, as has already been indicated, the textile and clothing industries together have a workforce of under half a million people. It is the fifth largest sector in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. The annual sales of the sector last year amounted to some £15 billion, of which £5.4 billion is added value. Its exports in the last year were something in the range of £4.5 billion. That indicates the importance of the industry to the British economy and in the present GATT round, if it resumes as we hope it will, these interests must not be minimised by the Government.
The ending of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement is causing concern to the industry in terms of employment. As we are all aware, the employment force in the textile industry in particular has been seriously depleted by past crises in the industry and there are fears that it will be further depleted by the phasing out of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. There are some differences of opinion as to the extent of the employment problem. Professor Silberston, reporting under a commission from the Government, estimated possible losses in the industry of 33,000 people. The industry itself is more pessimistic and feels that the Silberston report is flawed. The TUC suggests that more than 100,000 jobs will be lost and the European Textile Industry Association estimates that in the Community as a whole more than 1 million jobs will be lost. Therefore, it is a problem. The problem in the UK is worse than in Europe as a whole. Industry in the United Kingdom was slower than the rest of its European competitors in restructuring and modernising, although in the past five years it has made substantial investment.
The position now is that, although low-cost imports from the developing countries are still a critical problem for industry in the UK, more than half our imports come from EC countries. Therefore, it is essential that, first, the GATT rules are adequate to cover the situation in all ways and, secondly, that British industry receives the same support as other European industries.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, indicated, not all the problems we face lie with the developing countries. He gave indications of evasion of the disciplines which should apply under the MFA. However, in relation to the developing countries we need to distinguish between those developing countries such as Lesotho which need help and protection, and other countries such as South Korea which are now in a position to take care of themselves.
248
That distinction should be made in whatever emerges from the new arrangements which we hope will be made.
Although the Government seem now to have stiffened their position on the GATT talks in relation to textiles and clothing, I should like the Minister to give us an assurance today that they will press for a minimum of 10 years for the phasing out of the MFA and that they will support the proposals of the European Commission that increases in import growth rates will be limited in the first stage of the phasing out period and then increase gradually. We need assurances from the Government on those points and their assurance that the new arrangements will be even stronger than those which are being phased out.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for introducing this debate. I intend to restrict my remarks to the food trade. I should explain that I have an interest in that I have been a farmer all my life and still try to make a living from that now very precarious occupation. If anybody would like to talk about buying a farm, perhaps he would meet me in the Peers' Lobby later. I am no longer commercially involved in the food business but I have been for most of my life.
Before we entered the EC we had other financial systems supporting agriculture—the price support system. Under those systems farmers received a payment which made their income up to what was considered to be a satisfactory amount. However, the products were sold into the market place at the market price, which fluctuated up and down according to supply and demand. The food trade bought its products from the farmer at normal market prices which were heavily influenced by world market prices.
Since moving into the EC there is now a different system. I wish to make a point which is sometimes not appreciated—namely, no farmer ever receives a cheque from the EC. All the money paid by the EC to support food prices is paid through the trade. The food trade receives money either in terms of internal subsidies or for export refunds which help to adjust prices to what would otherwise be world price levels.
That means that the food trade in this country is now able to operate on a world trade basis. That system, which I admit is extremely complicated and into which I shall not go here, enables the food trade to sell at world price levels the food bought from the farmer. If one looks at the European food trade, of the 20 top food companies in Europe, 14 are British. Of the top 100 food and drink companies in Europe, 23 are British. Therefore, we have many more food and drink companies than any other country. People in the textile industry talk of how big their industry is, but the food industry is by far the largest. It operates 14.5 per cent. of total manufactures in food and drink and some 600,000 or 700,000 people are employed in it. One sees the scope and the scale of the business about which we must be concerned. The key issue from the food trade's point of view is that, if we are to maintain that strong position in Europe and continue to export about £2 billion worth of products outside the EC, it

249
must still be in a position to buy its raw materials at world prices, which it now does through the EC intervention system.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield explained the latest MacSharry proposals which will have a drastic effect upon the agriculture industry. If one ties those in with the United States proposals in the GATT negotiations, then most of the export refunds will be abolished. I must make clear that those refunds are not a subsidy to the food trade, but they make it possible for the food trade to sell and manufacture its goods at world prices.
As regards the current negotiations, I am concerned that, on the one hand, the food trade is losing its opportunity to buy products at world prices and, on the other, we continue to find systems of supporting the marginal food producers in terms of agricultural producers. Therefore, we shall end up with a system where in Britain particularly and in Europe generally we shall not be producing our food at world prices. Therefore, the food trade must buy its raw materials at inflated prices but will be expected to compete with a world market based on world market prices.
The impact will be that the UK producer particularly will not have the enormous market in the food trade which he now has. The food trade buys 70 per cent. of all food produced on British farms. What concerns me is that the latest MacSharry proposals, so well defined by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, will make life difficult for the more efficient producers while placing more money with the less efficient producers. However, if we are to solve the problem, we need to take out the marginal producers so that those who are producing our food—and it will be an enormous quantity of food—are at least producing it in the most efficient manner possible. If British farmers are able to produce in the most efficient manner possible, the food trade can buy its food from them very competitively and we can maintain our market.
Another point which I must make is that the food trade is not exporting goods in order to get rid of them. We have no more than our accepted share of the world trade, which, as your Lordships have rightly said, is a growing business. We should continue to share in that growing opportunity.
Therefore, I should like to say to the Government that in these negotiations it is very important that we do not end up with a system which takes away the food trade's ability to compete on the world market while at the same time maintaining support of agriculture which makes it impossible for our food producers to run as efficiently as they should. In other words, they will all become 50 per cent. producers. We cut back here and cut back there and give financial support to the marginal producers which, quite frankly, should be out of business altogether. We are now wending £22 billion per year on supporting the CAP. That money could be better used to take out from business marginal producers.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I wish to turn your Lordships' attention, I hope quite easily, from food to whisky. I want to say a word about GATT in regard to the Scotch whisky industry and other spirit drinks industries in the EC. I wish to mention the industry's most recent submission to GATT, and ask the Government whether they are prepared to back that submission.
In world markets Scotch whisky and the other Community-produced spirits face a considerable array of tariffs and tariff-based barriers to trade. It is a significant problem for the Community as a whole as well as for the UK. Scotch whisky volume sales for export exceed those of all other Community-produced spirit drinks put together and are six times those of cognac. Within the UK, with 85 per cent. of sales exported—£1.4 billion worth —Scotch whisky is among the top five UK export earners.
Because negotiations on spirit drinks are part of the GATT agricultural negotiations, there has always been the danger that they will not receive adequate attention amid the wider agricultural debate. That is the reason the European Community association of spirit producers, on the initiation of the Scotch Whisky Association, has consistently pressed our Government, the Commission and the GATT secretariat to ensure that the industry's problems are properly assessed.
I am advised by the Scotch Whisky Association that detailed evidence was submitted in 1987 identifying a vast range of barriers to trade. Those barriers existed in 84 GATT countries. There were more than 40 instances of tax discrimination in favour of countries' locally produced drinks. There were more than 130 examples of discrimination by means of excessive customs duty, and, most insidiously of all, some 200 non-tariff barriers ranging from import embargoes or quotas to monopolies, systems of prior deposits, restrictive import licensing or analytical procedures.
An example of a GATT contracting partner which protects its own domestic spirits in that way is Korea. Its liquor tax on home-produced soju is 35 per cent.; on whisky it is 200 per cent. On top of that it adds value import duty of 25 per cent. on imported brandy and 40 per cent. on Scotch whisky and other spirits.
Since 1987 the dossier containing that evidence has been constantly updated and discussed with our Government, with the Commission and with GATT. Most recently, on 10th January this year, a fresh submission was made. It was specifically tailored to 27 markets which the Commission had identified as its priorities. The submission reiterates the industry's principal objectives. They are, first, the elimination of all import duties and equivalent charges on a reciprocal basis between countries; secondly, the levying of excise tax on the basis of alcoholic strength and at the same rate whether the spirit is domestically produced or imported; and, thirdly, the removal of all non-tariff barriers.
Neither the Scotch Whisky Association nor the European Community association has ever sought protection in domestic or other markets. They have

251
consistently backed the reciprocal elimination of the European Community's common customs tariffs on imported spirits or, should that prove unattainable, the bringing into line of the present differing CCT rates at an identical and reasonable level on the basis of alcoholic strength and to the exclusion of all other import duty equivalent charges.
In view of all that perhaps I can ask the Minister, first, whether the Government would agree that the submission to GATT on 10th January by the Scotch Whisky Association and others seems likely to secure fair trading in export markets for those industries. Secondly, are the Government prepared to support that initiative? I hope that when my noble friend responds he can give me an answer.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for introducing the debate. The crisis that has developed in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations is much more serious than generally realised. The blast of publicity which accompanied the disagreement on agriculture, particularly between the United States and the European Community, may have distorted the general perception of the crisis, presenting it as one which has arisen mainly among developed countries.
The issues at stake are much wider and more fundamental than is generally assumed. They include the question of whether the developed countries will give effect to the virtues of free markets at those points where it would require some painful adjustment. The real crisis is how the developing countries will overcome the serious difficulties of adjustment which their fragile economic structures will face if they are exposed to the full impact of market forces. It is that which will be crucial to the future development of those countries.
As has been said, the Uruguay Round is the most comprehensive and complicated system of trade negotiations that the world has ever seen. It includes issues that have been brought into a GATT round for the first time even though developing countries have never been enthusiastic about undertaking the GATT negotiations in those new areas. The question needs to be asked whether those countries in the third world, particularly the least developed among them which have not shared adequately in the expansion of world production and trade during the past decade, and many of which are still burdened by heavy indebtedness, can reasonably be required to undertake new commitments in the current negotiations. That will require even more difficult adjustment.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans for his contribution. The issue of development has been prominent in the negotiations. Developing countries have agreed all along that the agreements to be concluded on the various items should be such as to promote and not inhibit their development objective. They supported their objective by reference to the mandate agreed for the
252
negotiations in which, among other things, the parties agreed to the principle of differential and more favourable treatment for developing countries.
It was also agreed in the course of negotiations that the developed countries will not expect the developing countries to make contributions which are inconsistent with their individual development, and financial and trade needs. While several provisions in the draft final act submitted to the meeting in Brussels reflected those anxieties, they generally fell short of what had been envisaged in the negotiating mandate. That is an area where the developed countries can and should be more forthcoming. It will certainly be a key factor in persuading the developing countries to subscribe to the final act.
Reconciling the difference which exists between the developed and the developing countries will require among other things more liberal offers by developed countries on market access. That covers a whole range of issues including tropical and natural resource-based products. It also requires more determined efforts to submit trade in textiles and clothing to GATT rules and disciplines and more flexibility in dealing with the outstanding issues concerned with safeguard provisions, trade-related intellectual property measures, trade-related investment measures and services. A start has been made, albeit a small one, by the EC in its acknowledgment that more needs to be done on access for tropical products. That is only a small step. The next few weeks will be crucial for the negotiations.
Since, rightly or wrongly, agriculture has become the linchpin on which future progress in the round depends, an early breakthrough in this sector will be crucial in carrying forward the negotiations. It will not of itself assure a successful completion to the negotiations. For the developing countries the central issue is the alleviation of poverty. That has been stated in the World Bank's statement to the Brussels meeting. It is the contribution of the round to that objective that will be the yardstick by which the developing countries will judge whether or not it is a success.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for introducing this most important debate at a very important moment in the history of the GATT negotiations. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for not being able to follow up the points that he was making. When one has a tight timescale one has to concentrate on what one is going to talk about. I shall limit most of my remarks to the need to protect the payment of export refunds on exported processed foods to which my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton made quite considerable reference. In doing so, I have to declare an interest as I continue to work for the biscuit, cake, chocolate and confectionery industries.
Before explaining the vital importance of export refunds for processed foods, I must emphasise the equal importance to all industries—especially British ones because we depend absolutely on the freest possible trade—of a successful conclusion to the GATT Uruguay Round. That was emphasised in

253
particular by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham. It is indeed a misfortune for the food processing industry that its raw materials are subject to the rules of the common agricultural policy. As a result, the prices of those raw materials are deliberately higher than world prices, making the resultant processed products such as biscuits uncompetitive in their world markets unless the manufacturer receives a refund equivalent to the excess raw material price. As your Lordships will appreciate, that refund is in no way a subsidy.
Last December I wrote about that to my noble friend Lord Hesketh. I was delighted to receive a reply earlier this month from his colleague, my honourable friend Mr. Tim Sainsbury, explaining clearly that the DTI understood this absolutely. I am grateful to Mr. Sainsbury and to my noble friend the Minister.
In 1982, at the invitation of the Japanese Government, I led a delegation of medium-sized biscuit and chocolate manufacturers to see how the mutual trade in these products can be improved. At that stage the Japanese tariff on each product was between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. My noble friend Lord Young of Graffham told us that that level had been reduced to 5 per cent. in the preceding 30 years, but it had not been for agricultural-based products. That enabled such products to be sold only as luxuries in Japan.
I sought to explain to the Japanese that British biscuits and chocolates are high quality products, efficiently produced for the mass market. I managed to get them to recognise that the British food processing industry, in the 30 years from 1947 to 1977, was the most successful in improving its efficiency of all British industries. My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton expanded on that by saying that it is also one of, if not the, largest of British industries. I told the Japanese that the food processing industry therefore needed to be seen as comparable to the Japanese car industry and not to their very backward food processors.
At that stage the EC tariff on motor cars was of the order of 5 per cent. and I aimed at that as a yardstick for biscuits and chocolates. I am delighted to say that the Japanese saw the point and decreased the tariff on both biscuits and chocolates to 20 per cent. and below. They might have come lower still if both products had had no sugar components. The Japanese farmers were very hung up about sugar at the time because of a deal that had been done by the Australians which people did not believe to be completely fair. But that is by the way.
That brings me back to the misfortune of Britain's most efficient manufacturing industry having its raw materials subject to the common agricultural policy. Quite clearly, there needs to be appropriate protection for EC farmers (several noble Lords have made that clear) especially in the short run. It would be disastrous for the countries of Europe if their farmers went broke in large numbers, quite apart from the adverse effect on the farmers themselves.
Though none of my farmer friends seems to be very keen on the idea, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord
254
Bruce of Donington, and my noble friend Lord Cockfield might be. Like my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton and, I believe, also the noble Lord, Lord Jay, I feel that the success of the food processors in earning valuable export money would be greatly improved if the machinery of the common agricultural policy were replaced by something like the old British system of deficiency payments. The processed food exporters, whose value added is vastly more than that of the farmers, could then be freed from high cost raw materials and the image of being subsidised when in fact they are not.
I commend that approach to my noble friends in the Department of Trade and Industry and also in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that something on those lines might be advanced, though I fear that it cannot be in time for the conclusion of the GATT negotiations. However, if we were working in that direction perhaps our critics on the other side of the Atlantic would be mollified and agree to some conclusion that goes in that direction.
4.58 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in a splendid opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that the liberalisation of trade would be the motor for growth. He is quite right. No more is that so than in Latin America, where access to free trade with Europe is one of the keys to economic recovery. Latin Americans have unfortunately tended to view the completion of the single market in 1992 as Fortress Europe turning in on itself, whereas the reality is, or should be, quite the reverse—that is to say, Europe will become an area of huge opportunity. However, for that to happen this GATT round must succeed. Their apprehension is quite understandable.
In the very brief time that is available I should like to turn from the general to the specific and outline the situation for bananas, which is a classic case affecting both Latin America and the Caribbean. Bananas are among the most protected products in Europe and have so far received only peripheral attention in the current GATT round. The present UK regulatory arrangements prevent Latin American bananas competing on equal terms with those from the Caribbean. Latin American imports are controlled by quota and tariff restrictions which provide preferential access to Caribbean banana producers.
As I understand it, the United Kingdom quota for "dollar area" bananas, for that is what the Latin American product is called, is governed by the Banana Trade Advisory Committee. This is a group set up by MAFF officials and comprises Caribbean producers but no consumers and no Latin Americans. By the same token, France provides preferential access for Cameroon and the Ivory Coast, and Spain for the Canaries; and so it goes on. By contrast, Germany has a free market for bananas. That is particularly interesting as in Germany per capita consumption of bananas is much higher, prices are much lower and the consumer has already shown a preference for Latin American bananas, something with which I entirely agree.

255
As a result, in the UK, where the producer cartel is in full swing, the consumer has less choice and pays higher prices. Free trade would introduce dynamism in the static UK market and offer consumers greater choice and higher quality—exactly what this Government have stated they have set up and intend to do.
I appreciate that there is a problem for the Caribbean—this point has been referred to by other speakers. In another place last July, Lynda Chalker spoke of possible aid to help the Caribbean banana producers to improve efficiency and diversify into other products. Like other statements by Mrs. Chalker, who is an exceptionably able and talented Minister, that seems eminently sensible. However, it is very important not to lose sight of the original objective of the GATT, which seeks to establish rules which are equal for all. This is clearly not the case with tropical agricultural products and I have cited one particularly glaring example. We need this round—we all need this round—to succeed, and must continue to strive for freer trade in all products and in all countries.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is a pity, not to say an absurdity, that a subject of this supreme importance should be dealt with in a two-and-a-half hour debate in which speeches are limited to six minutes. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, said, a matter of the greatest possible importance. When the Gulf war is behind us it will still be of the greatest importance; and it will still be with us. If we fail to renew GATT and if we fail to bring the Uruguay Round to at least a relatively successful conclusion, the consequences could be far more serious than any consequences arising from the war. It is not surprising that I take this line, speaking as I do for the only party which has shown consistent and unswerving support for free trade. I am delighted to find a number of converts to free trade from the most unexpected quarters in today's debate.
Unless we get an agreement on the continuation of GATT and on the liberalisation of trade through GATT—in other words, should this round fail—there is a very serious danger of retreat into protectionism, the results of which will be far-reaching and devastating. We in the industrialised countries are already in a recession. A retreat into protectionism would deepen and lengthen that recession, with consequences of poverty and social disruption of a very grave kind.
The second reason why the subject is extremely important was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and other noble Lords. One of the major issues facing the whole world is the plight of developing countries in trying to grow out of poverty. They must do so because of their population problems, because of their social needs and also because they are potentially very important markets. They must do so for their own sake and for the sake of the rest of the world.
256
Unless the Uruguay Round develops in such a way that markets in the developed countries become increasingly open to the developing countries, that will not happen. Many of those countries will sink from a level of poverty, already by our standards unbelievable, to a standard that is totally intolerable. The future of the developing countries—one of the world's great issues for the next decade—will depend to a considerable extent on the way in which we handle the Uruguay Round.
It is of the greatest benefit to consumers that the Uruguay Round—and the liberalisation of trade which depends on it —should go ahead and go ahead fast. The developed countries have been held back by the policies of parties in this country and elsewhere in putting the interests of producer groups—be they employer producer groups or employee producer groups—ahead of the interests of consumers. We have to reverse that policy and make sure that policies are developed first and foremost for the benefit of consumers and not for the benefit of any of the producer groups. Of course the interests of producer groups must be taken into account but they can never dominate, as they have dominated far too often in past policies and as they are dominating now in the difficulties confronting the Uruguay Round.
These are issues of the very greatest importance. If at this last moment, at five to twelve or five past twelve —I know that difficulties have come from elsewhere and that in some ways the Government have attempted to make the round successful—the Government cannot revive the Uruguay Round, the consequences for this country and for the world as a whole will be very serious.
Agriculture is experiencing great difficulties. We have heard a great deal about it during the discussions on the Uruguay Round and in today's debate. The farming interest must of course be taken into account. But there is not just one farming interest. There are a great many different farming groups with different problems. Surely it is possible to break down the policy in such a way that one does not have to subsidise successful farmers in some areas. One drives through France and sees extremely wealthy farmers in Picardy. They are doing very well indeed out of the common agricultural policy. It is ridiculous that we should go on supporting people of that kind.
I refer not only to little farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to little farmers. His idea of a little farmer is not a very good representative of little farmers and is not the same as other people's. Some small farmers do have particular problems; but not all small farmers are poor. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, many small farmers have other sources of income. Their farming has become little more than hobby farming. They do not need the same kind of support. Surely we can find ways of easing the problems of farming. This is a small issue in comparison with what is at stake in the Uruguay Round for the world as a whole.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, anyone who has studied the economics of free competition and of free trade is aware that many arguments have been put forward to justify protection in specific cases. The point of a special case is that it is special; it is not the general rule. It is a contradiction in terms if every case is a special case. Those who have experience of these things in government are aware of the paradox that all sections of industry and commerce are ardent free traders except when it comes to themselves. They are then able to justify all manner of restraints on trade and restrictive practices and want the Government to aid and abet them. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, with whose contribution I so much agreed, when he was Secretary of State had ample experience of this. But it is not a party matter. All Ministers are subject to the pressures of those who want to be able to buy everything they need in the cheapest competitive markets here and abroad but also want their own home markets protected. Therefore, my judgment, without totally rejecting the theory of protection in particular circumstances, is that, overall, the bias must be in favour of free entry into markets and that the special cases—one or two of which have been referred to today—must be very special and very rare indeed.
In the present context the problem is more complicated. Every country supports GATT and is in favour of free competition—except when it comes to its own vital interests. It is important, therefore, that the Government of the United Kingdom should recognise where our interests lie. Our national interest as a trading nation in goods and services must push us in the direction of free trade. However, given the scale of protection elsewhere, our negotiating position along with that of the Community must be to demand fair trade; in other words, we must have a level playing field.
We must remove trade barriers as rapidly as we can. But it would be foolhardy to remove them more rapidly than our competitors. That would complicate government policy, perhaps much more so in the case of the present Government than for the next Labour Government. If other countries find ways within the GATT rules to help their industry and commerce, fair competition requires us to do the same within reason. For example, fair competition implies that the tax burden placed on our firms cannot differ markedly from that placed upon our competitors. I shall give your Lordships a present example. I think we all agree, with the possible exception of government Ministers, that the Statutory Sick Pay Bill is intrinsically pretty silly. But one overwhelming reason for opposing it is that it imposes costs on our firms which are unnecessary at this time. The same point applies to the scale of industrial training and to the way it is financed.
I change tack slightly. Perhaps I may refer to the problem of agricultural protection support. The cynicism implicit in my earlier remarks is multiplied severalfold when it comes to farmers the world over. I take it for granted that there will always be farm
258
subsidies. I am duly grateful, as several noble Lords have pointed out, that one thing which we in the advanced world—I emphasise the term "advanced world"—have not suffered for many decades is a shortage of food; indeed, it is a blessing. However, I am equally aware that the Cairns Group, whatever its rhetoric on fair competition and efficiency, is certainly negotiating in its own interests. We must bear that fact in mind. Nevertheless, having said that, the group's criticisms of the CAP, and those made today by several noble Lords, are all valid. From our point of view the CAP is a wasteful use of public funds, falling down both on the criterion of equity and also on the criterion of efficiency. There is no need for me to reiterate the point that a system as arcane and bureaucratic as the CAP is ready-made for fraud.
My hope, therefore, for agricultural policy is as follows. I believe first that we must respond to external criticism of the CAP and that we should remove those elements which excessively distort world markets in agricultural products. Secondly, we must grasp the opportunity which this gives us to reform our system of agricultural protection. Certainly the system in operation before the CAP, to which several noble Lords have referred, is, I am convinced, the correct way forward. But, thirdly, in the overall negotiations, I believe that we must give nothing away for nothing. I refer to remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. I stand second to no one in my support for principle. However, the word "negotiation" actually means negotiation; in other words, it means giving up some things in order to obtain others. We must face that reality in this GATT round as well as in everything else. While we must make some concessions in this part of the GATT round, we must not be so naive as to make them in ways which grant us nothing in return.
Perhaps I may now turn to what I believe to be a much more important aspect of the GATT round which has not received sufficient attention thus far. I refer to the part dealing with international transactions in services. They are extremely important to the United Kingdom as services now contribute a very large proportion to the GDP. And they will become even more important as we move towards completion of the single market and towards EMU.
I agree that services create special technical problems. That is partly because they involve the direct use of labour and therefore create problems in regard to work permits and immigration. Services are also "invisible" at national barriers. This means there are serious problems in enforcing any GATT arrangements which come into existence. However, I am convinced that none of those problems is unsolvable.
In the case of services—whatever you think about the problem of goods—we have an enormous range of protection measures which need to be removed. I do not hesitate to say that they need to be removed in Britain's national interest. It is certainly true that important questions of regulation arise dealing with investor protection, the quality of services, and so on. I am not convinced that free competition between

259
regulatory systems will lead to a fully satisfactory outcome. However, I believe that, taking the lead which we gave with respect to the single market and the services, we can apply that general approach on a world scale.
Therefore, my view is that in trying to succeed in what remains of the GATT round—I am rather more pessimistic, I think, than most noble Lords about whether it has any chance of success—we must try to create the equivalent of a single market in services. We must liberalise transactions in them, ensure that non-discrimination is an essential part of any agreement and, finally, seek to achieve full market access.
I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It is a great pity we do not have more time to discuss the matter. There are many more technical points to be made. Nevertheless, my conclusion is a simple one. It is to the advantage of the United Kingdom, of the European Community and of the world at large that the Uruguay Round should be a success. Perhaps I may add a consideration which has not been raised, partly, I imagine, on the grounds of lack of time. Nearly all the leading experts in the field also agree that free trade is most essential to Eastern Europe. The competitive route is certainly a prerequisite if those economies are to be revitalised.
Far too little progress has been made in too many areas. The danger of collapse is still there. The forces for protection in the United States are stronger and becoming more so. However, they are not negligible in this country. Moreover, they are always strongest when there is a recession. It would help if the Government could switch to sensible economic policies, but they seem determined not to do so. Notwithstanding that, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government, with their European Community partners, to make one last valiant effort to help restart and then successfully conclude the Uruguay Round.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think that it would be entirely appropriate if I were first to declare an agricultural interest, especially in the light of today's valuable debate for which we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I discussed the matter with my noble friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. She addressed me in terms that she felt that the common agricultural policy and agriculture would be the salient and main features of the debate. I assured her that that would not be the case. However, I could not have been more wrong.
These are times of great uncertainty, when the structures that underpin world growth and world peace are being tested to their limits. Freedom and democracy can be undermined in more ways than one. Economic freedom and economic growth are essential to the survival of any nation, to its peace and prosperity. Democracy cannot flourish without them, nor they without it. But the future of the multinational trading system, on which continuing world growth and development and our own prosperity as a major
260
trading nation depend, are under threat. Pressures towards protectionism are once again building up around the globe. Nations are succumbing to the temptation to take disputes into their own hands rather than abiding by agreed multinational procedures designed to ensure that the weak are not victimised by the strong and that all nations share in the benefits derived from progressive market opening.
The GATT has been the foundation of the growth in world trade from which we have all benefited since the end of the Second World War. It has presided over an unprecedented expansion in world-wide wealth creation. But its foundations are now buckling under the weight of its responsibilities. We are faced with the task of rejuvenating the GATT to face the challenges of a new century, on pain of seeing it collapse.
The benefits that the Uruguay Round could confer are particularly necessary at such a time as this. The world economy badly needs the sort of noninflationary stimulus a successful GATT Round can provide: encouraging trade and competition through lower tariffs and the removal of trade barriers. In addition, the round is concluding at a time when the Western alliance faces two great challenges: in the Gulf and in the Soviet Union. If the round succeeds it can reinforce the partnership of nations on which our responses to those crises must be based and give us a solid basis from which to tackle the economic problems that they may pose. If, on the other hand, the round is allowed to fail, we risk sending the message that the principles we espouse are too weak to face the challenge of national self-interest, let alone anything larger. That must not be.
As a major trading nation, the UK stands to make very important gains from the market opening and strengthening of multilateral rules that a successful round would produce. For instance, our service industries (which account for 55 per cent. of our GDP) stand to gain by the creation of an agreement on trade in services which will for the first time be able to provide a framework of agreed and equitable rules for trade in that important area and progressively enable world markets to be opened up. Trade in services now accounts for over 20 per cent. of all trade, and yet it is still governed by the law of the jungle. An agreed and equitable system of rules is in everybody's interests.
Our exporters also stand to gain by agreement on minimum standards of protection from piracy and counterfeiting where that protection does not already exist. At present our drug industry loses £50 million a year through such practices and our record industry £1 billion. An agreement to prevent counterfeiting and protect patents, copyright and trade marks is a high priority for us.
More and better opportunities for UK firms to invest overseas will also be opened up if we can achieve an agreement on removal of trade-distorting restrictions and conditions on investment. Our exporters will be able to obtain greater market access for their products world-wide through the removal and reduction of tariffs. If we are able to attain the Uruguay Round goal of a further 30 per cent. cut in

261
tariffs, our exports outside the Community will be boosted by at least 2 per cent.—a very large sum in real terms.
The negotiations in the Uruguay Round cover 15 separate subject areas; they are the most ambitious ever undertaken. Work has proceeded inch by painful inch over the past four years towards a revitalised trading order able to meet the challenges of a new century. We had hoped that those efforts would be brought to fruition last December in Brussels. I am very sorry that they were not. But we still have our shoulders to the wheel. If all participants show the flexibility and commitment the GATT deserves, we can still bring this round to a successful conclusion. The European Council at its December meeting reaffirmed the Community's determination to achieve success, and I believe our negotiating partners want that as much as we do.
As your Lordships are aware, the main stumbling block to success has been lack of agreement on the liberalisation of agriculture. No one has come well out of the debate on agriculture. The US has been too ambitious and offered too little on its own main form of trade-distorting agriculture support. Japan has shown no inclination to compromise; and others were too ready to suspend negotiations, so that the Community's scope for compromise was never fully explored.
Agriculture accounts for just 3 per cent. of the Community's GDP. Clearly there is no question of dismantling the CAP or leaving our farmers without any form of support or protection; but we must retain our sense of proportion. Is the whole of our economic future to be jeopardised by fear of rural change?
It is important to recall that in every past GATT round there have been industries which have feared the consequences of reductions in trade barriers. Their fears have proved greatly exaggerated. Indeed many of them are the principal champions of a successful outcome on this occasion. It is also important to recall the fact that the benefits of each successive round have always been even greater than had been hoped originally.
If the round fails we face the prospect of US unilateral action against EC agriculture trade barriers and a trade war in which EC trade interests, especially agriculture, would inevitably suffer. That is no solution. Far better to agree to sensible and evolutionary change, and do it through the GATT.
Rome was not built in a day. If our efforts succeed in bringing agriculture fully under GATT disciplines for the first time, that will in itself be a great achievement. We shall need to go on to build on it over the years and in the rounds to come.
Today, intensive work is continuing around the globe to try to rescue the round. The world at large could be forgiven for thinking that agriculture was the only subject under discussion. Let me spend a few moments at least to tell your Lordships what else is at stake. There are some important subjects which form part of the total package that I have already mentioned: services, intellectual property, investment
262
and tariffs. Some of those areas taken alone represent vast and ambitious efforts for which we have good prospects of success—the massive 107-way negotiation on tariffs, and the even more Herculean task of devising a regime for services from scratch, to cover everything from tourism to tax consultancy, from aviation to architecture.
There is more within our grasp. We are on the verge of an agreement to liberalise world trade in textiles. Here is a subject of great importance to the UK. There will be adjustment costs over a reasonable transition period to be borne by all those countries that have been keeping out the competition. But there will also be great new opportunities for the efficient and competitive UK firms which have so far found many markets shut against them. We look forward to free and fair trade in textiles, which will allow each country to exploit its natural strengths and give the consumer the benefit of lower prices and wider choice.
Let me touch on one more important subject. Under present GATT rules the findings of a dispute panel require the consent of all parties before they can be implemented, and so can be blocked by one of the parties to the dispute. That fundamental weakness has been steadily sapping the authority of the GATT over the years, and with it nations' loyalty to the multilateral system. The United States infamous Section 301 crowbar is only one example of what nations have been driven to by the GATT's failings. At last it seems that we shall be able to put that right. Reforms are within our grasp which would give the GATT real teeth at last and bring all justification for unilateral initiatives and alternatives to an end. What a gain that would be, especially for the poor countries of the world which inevitably lose out against the economic giants.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour referred to the position of the Scotch whisky industry. We have not seen the Scotch Whisky Association's latest submissions, but I stress that the Government are well aware of the importance of gaining improved access to third country markets not just for Scotch whisky producers but for spirit drink producers throughout the EC and further afield. We have consistently supported the Scotch Whisky Association's line that market access for such products should be improved and have frequently made representations to the European Commission to that end.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, referred to the Church's position with regard to the free market in agriculture. It is fair to say that if one goes to Eastern Europe there will be many who will say that a right to food, which does not exist there, would exist if there were a free market in agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, quite rightly pointed out to your Lordships that the extension of trade was the best non-inflationary way of the world avoiding a recession by extending the economy. I am sure that we all agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to the interests of the food industry. The European Community has throughout

263
the GATT negotiations on agriculture made it clear that there can be no question of dismantling the CAP or completely abandoning particular policies such as export refunds. European Community markets will continue to be supported with regard to these products and processed products because when they are exported they are initially bought at the EC/CAP price for the product that goes into the can.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred to the US showing great disregard for the GATT rules. Unilateral action taken by the United States to settle trade disputes is, we believe, a serious problem. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, referred to the confirmation that he would like as regards the MFA; namely, that it would only be phased out on the basis of strengthened GATT rules and disciplines.
The fact is that Her Majesty's Government and the European Community remain committed to phasing out the MFA as part of the overall Uruguay Round settlement on the basis of strengthened GATT rules and the disciplines. The important sectors are the effective and lasting opening of markets, the creation of fair competitive conditions and the improved safeguard discipline.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has always provided your Lordships with a unique insight into, as he sees it, the problems and difficulties that exist within the European Community and particularly with the CAP. He takes a radical view, admirably as always, but I am not sure that I can go so far as his desire for the abolition of Articles 38 to 47 in their entirety. However, I shall certainly pass on his comments to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, mentioned the possibility of the United States' system of deficiency payments being preferable to those export subsidies that exist within the European Community. I do not believe that we can agree with that because at the end of the day they are a panacea, a different subsidy: but the final result is that a subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred to favours granted to part-time farmers—favours which are granted essentially in other parts of the Community. This is an area where we always need to move with a certain amount of caution. It is perfectly possible to say that the 50 acres which were no longer viable yesterday and the 100 acres today may be the 200 acres of tomorrow. The argument that he deploys does not work in a world with a fixed acreage. It may become a floating and not so flexible friend in his argument in the longer term.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, dealt with the OECD figures on farm units. There is a case for taking the real cost or the volumetric cost of a particular commodity. He produced figures which showed that the EC, under the CAP regime, had the least subsidised farmers. However, if we take a volumetric figure, we come out with a different set of figures as regards the level of subsidies which is worth comparing with the noble Lord's figures. We start at
264
the top with Switzerland at 75 per cent., followed closely by Norway with 74 per cent. and closely thereafter by the Japanese at 72 per cent. Then we come to the European Community at 38 per cent. and the United States in volumetric terms—which at the end of day will decide the market—at 27 per cent. as regards overall subsidy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the Liberal Party's unequal commitment to the free trade principle. With the greatest respect, I refer the noble Baroness to the immortal memory of Lord Peel.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord would have to go back 150 years!
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I only hoped to go to the fount of all knowledge. Perhaps I may return to the two figures mentioned at the start, both by the proposer, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend, Lord Young of Graf ham. There is a historical memory that we must never forget which puts into context the importance of this GATT Round. I refer to the fact that in the great depression manufacturing output fell by 40 per cent. and the world manufacturing trade fell by 35 per cent. We must never allow that to happen again. The most important reason why it should never happen again was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The greatest loser of all, if we fail to achieve a successful result, will be the poorest of the poor. That should never be the basis of allowing anything as important as the GATT to fail.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We have covered a great deal of ground and I am grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for his full reply. As all noble Lords have said in the debate, it is a most important matter. I was glad to see that the Government take this matter extremely seriously. All we can do as a House is express our hope that the Uruguay Round can be salvaged and brought to a successful conclusion. We wish the Government every success. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Israel: Iraqi Missile Attack
5.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in answer to a Private Notice Question. The Statement is as follows:
"Last night once again Tel Aviv came under missile attack from Iraq. Latest statements by the Israeli Government indicate that because of this attack three people are dead and 98 are injured.
"This House will endorse last night's statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. He said that he was appalled by this further savage attack on civilians. He expressed this country's deepest sympathy to the bereaved, to those hurt and to their families. This House agrees.

265
"The Prime Minister repeated our hope that, even now, the Government of Israel would show that forbearance that they have so far demonstrated and not give Saddam Hussein the satisfaction of drawing Israel into the conflict. This message was passed to the Government of Israel last night.
"Israel is of course entitled to defend herself: that is not at issue. The question is whether it is in her interest to retaliate. We believe it is not. To do so would be to play Saddam Hussein's game without in our view adding to Israel's security. I therefore hope that Israel, her government and her people, will continue to show the same patience and courageous restraint that she has already displayed in the face of outrageous provocation".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question in another place. In our debate on Monday noble Lords deplored the Scud missile attacks on Israel and expressed their abhorrence at what can only be described as a crime against international law.
This further attack causing the death of three people and extensive damage is a wicked attempt to bring Israel into the war in the hope of breaking the coalition and undermining the United Nations itself. It will stand out in history as an example of inexcusable aggression against a civilian population.
The great majority of countries in the world have paid their tribute to Israel for its forbearance under pressure and provocation and hope that this will continue, although everyone appreciates Israel's difficult position. What Saddam Hussein is waging is not a war in the conventional sense but a campaign of terrorism against innocent and helpless people. This must not be forgotten when the conflict comes to an end.
No civilised person and no one with a sense of justice or compassion can find any justification for so cruel a campaign. This is yet one more reason why the United Nations should be fully supported and the conflict brought to a decisive conclusion in the interests of all the people in the Middle East.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question given in another place. I wish to associate myself and my colleagues on these Benches with the words of the Prime Minister and those of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
We have witnessed a mixture of indiscriminate terrorism and provocation. We can only admire the forbearance which the Israeli Government and the people of Israel have shown in response to this provocation. We cannot deny them the right of self-defence and we can only hope, for the reasons which have already been given, that they will continue to show that forbearance which we believe is both in their best interests and in the best interests of a successful outcome of the conflict in which we are now engaged.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful for the firm statements of support that we have received from the noble Lord the Leader of the
266
Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Both noble Lords picked up two points: first, the immense provocation to which Israel has been subjected and, secondly, that this is a campaign of terrorism against innocent civilians. We deplore this quite outrageous action by Iraq and we commend the forbearance of Israel.

Health and Safety at Work
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the case for further steps to improve provisions for health and safety at work; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity of introducing a debate on a subject which I am sure many will feel is of the utmost importance despite the fact that at the present time our thoughts are very much turned to events in the Gulf. However, health and safety at work is a matter of continuing concern.
Towards the end of the previous Session we had the publication of the annual report of the Health and Safety Commission—the body charged with responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work Act. The report shows that a great deal of important and necessary work was undertaken during the year. The job of the commission becomes increasingly complex. It must deal with the results of new technologies, substances and processes. The chairman stated in his foreword that the commission's methods and speed of reaction have had to be adapted to meet European requirements. That arises because of the decision to make occupational safety one of the areas for qualified majority voting under the Single European Act.
Despite the good and committed work of the commission—it is one of the remaining institutions based on the tripartite principle involving unions and employers as well as a commissioner representing the public interest—there is still great cause for concern. We read, for example, that in manufacturing industry the number of fatal injuries increased for the first time in a number of years from 94 in 1988–89 to 105 in 1989–90. Employment in the same sector increased marginally but not to the same extent.
The provisional figures for injuries to employees that cause an absence of more than three days was 5.4 per cent. higher than the final figure for the previous year and that in itself was 6.5 per cent. higher than the figure for the year before that. The trend is not a good one, even taking account of the fact that there may well be better reporting.
In construction the picture is bad. The fatal injury rate there is the highest for all sectors. According to the report, the number of major injuries to employees increased for the third successive year from 2,907 in 1988–89 to 3,166 in 1989–90.
On 20th June last year my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick tabled a Question on health and safety and the Channel Tunnel workforce. There had been a great deal of public disquiet over a series of deaths and injuries on our side of the project. The situation on our

267
side appeared to be worse than on the French side. At the time the debate took place, the consortium building the tunnel had been prosecuted three times by the Health and Safety Executive and on each occasion it was fined £10,000. The HSE is now prosecuting the companies in the consortium following investigations into the death of Gary Woodward, aged 32, who was killed in 1989.
In July 1990 an electrician, Charles McCourt, died while repairing a high voltage cable. We have recently heard that further prosecutions are in the pipeline. According to the HSC report, there have been discussions between the contractors and the Accident Prevention Advisory Unit of the Health and Safety Executive. As a result of those discussions, a safety monitoring system has been introduced. It is understood that the project, while being exciting and innovative, is clearly hazardous. It should not, however, be one that proceeds at the expense of the safety of the workers involved in it. The union organising the workforce believes that tougher penalties are required. The union points to the situation in the United States where company directors can be charged with the manslaughter of their employees if a fatal accident occurs as a result of negligence or the failure of safety measures.
As I said earlier, the construction industry generally has a bad record. It is a hazardous industry and that is why training is so important. I regret that the Construction Industry Training Board, which has done so much in this area and without which things might have been worse, faces a somewhat uncertain future. It has been granted a further three years of existence as a statutory body, but beyond that its future is obscure.
Apart from the nature of the job, there are additional reasons why there are particular problems in this industry. It is a fragmented industry with many small companies. This can lead to poor communication on site and poor management of sub-contractors. Then there is the contracting system itself with bonus payments and penalty clauses which can encourage the cutting of corners. In small companies the level of safety training is low. I shall mention small companies again in a moment. There is sometimes a fear of victimisation or intimidation as this fragmented industry is difficult to unionise. Unions active in the industry complain that there are insufficient inspectors and that when prosecutions are brought the fines are derisory when compared with the worth of the contract involved. The companies get off lightly.
Moreover, there is no safety culture in the industry. There tends to be a macho culture where safety is not given sufficient importance, either by management or sometimes by some of the workforce. Undoubtedly the disaster at work which had the greatest impact on the public in recent years was the Piper Alpha tragedy. I have read the report of Lord Cullen. It was a fascinating document in its way, if somewhat depressing. I do not intend to discuss it in detail tonight. Parts of the report are highly technical and it may well warrant a full debate in itself with participation by noble Lords who have a degree of
268
technical expertise in that area. However, I believe that one of my noble friends may make some further reference to the report in the debate this evening. My reason for referring to the report is that some of the conclusions about safety seem appropriate not just in the hazardous environment of North Sea oil rigs but also wherever hazardous working conditions exist.
Lord Cullen, also refers to the need for the establishment of a safety culture. By that he means the establishment of the kind of working environment in which it is simply not permissible to cut corners and where everyone is constantly aware of the hazards which surround them and take the necessary steps to minimise them as a matter of course. Paragraph 18.45 of the report states:
"Companies with a good safety record are dedicated to the proposition that safety starts with the unfailing commitment of the most senior management, and that of the chief executive officer in particular. They are personally responsible for setting … the safety philosophy and communicating it to all the workforce. The latter may be expressed in such simple and easily understood concepts as 'nothing is so important that it cannot be done safely' or 'if we cannot do it safely we won't do it' but underlying those is the belief that safety is a basic element in conducting business and cannot be considered a discrete and separate activity".
Lord Cullen, further stresses the importance of the involvement of the workforce. He regards first-line supervisors as playing a key role and emphasises their need for health and safety training. He says:
"Possibly the most visible instrument for the involvement of the workforce is a safety committee system".
However, it became clear from the inquiry that the Piper Alpha management did not recognise unions. There were safety committees consisting of supervisors but not of elected employees. Unions can play a key role not only in training but in motivating the workforce, and the company had clearly not understood that.
Over the years, the Trades Union Congress has played a significant role in trying to build a training and safety culture. That is not always easy. During my years as a trade union official I have known situations in which the members themselves have been none too keen to highlight unsafe working practices or insufficient precautions in the handling of hazardous substances. There is sometimes a fear that there might be victimisation or a diminution of lucrative work in an area where there is no alternative. So unions have had an educational job to do and in the main have been doing it. My own union employs a health and safety officer who was formerly a factory inspector. We hold regular training sessions at the union's college at Bishops Stortford.
In 1968 the occupational health unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine was expanded into an institute on the basis of a donation and subsequent annual grants from the TUC. The school tried, without success, to get similar support from employers. Nevertheless, the work expanded and important research was undertaken. M.Sc. courses in occupational medicine and hygiene were commenced. Sadly, I am told, the institute closed recently.
I am told that one of the reasons for the closure was the lack of interest on the part of academia in health and safety at work. That is a great pity since, as has been said by Professor Schilling, well known for his

269
commitment in this area, raising standards depends on health professionals being properly trained—hence the importance of academic centres. It is to be hoped that the efforts of Professor Schilling and his colleagues to establish a new academic department of occupational medicine will meet with success. However, I understand that the London federal health and safety service of the University of London has recently been closed as the result of cuts. The unit was carrying out very valuable training work in the safety area. It is a great pity when institutions of this kind, which are so necessary to future health and safety provision, become the subject of cuts and disappear from the scene. Important as the work of the HSE is, academic back-up and research is also important, particularly if we have to meet European standards in the future.
I said earlier that I would say something about small businesses. I am prompted to do so by an article which appears in the current issue of the Employment Gazette. This points out that employees working in small companies appear to run 20 per cent. more risk of major injury than those in medium to large establishments and some 40 per cent. more risk than those in very large establishments. When it is appreciated that, of the 2½ million employing establishments in the UK, 96 per cent. employ fewer than 20 people, it can be seen that this is a sizeable problem. Moreover, some 16 per cent. of major injuries in smaller establishments were to people under the age of 19 years, including six involving people under the age of 16. Also, there may be under-reporting, so the higher incidence of non-fatal injuries apparent in smaller establishments may be understated.
The article does not attempt to draw conclusions, but surely the statistics indicate the lack of a safety culture here, perhaps due to ignorance on the part of small company managements together with a greater incentive to cut corners for the sake of getting a job done and retaining profitability. It could also be argued strongly that a lack of inspectors with time to monitor what goes on in small companies is a contributing factor.
I am sure that the Government will say that the HSC's bid for resources has been met in full over the past two years. However, the fact remains that there have been cutbacks. The chairman's report states that nearly a decade ago—at the start of the Thatcher decade—the commission was told to cut staff radically, to improve efficiency and not to impose undue burdens on business. The chairman claims that that has been done, although he comments that the problems of the commission's growing effort in inflationary times remains a constant anxiety. Of course, there is the necessity to recruit and retain staff of sufficient professional standing.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to what is known as the European framework directive of the Community. So far as I can see, it imposes obligations upon all employers very much in line with our own legislation but in certain respects goes further. There is one provision to which I should particularly like to draw attention. It states:
270
"Workers who, in the event of serious, imminent and unavoidable danger, leave their work stations and/or dangerous area may not be placed at any disadvantage because of their action and must be protected against any harmful or unjustified consequences in accordance with national practice".
If that means anything at all it means that in such circumstances workers who walk off the job are entitled to protection from dismissal or other intimidation.
To summarise, I believe that adequate resources must be available to do the job of monitoring or inspection. The workforce must be involved through safety committees and elected safety representatives, who must be given time off with pay for suitable and approved training. There must be an end to victimisation and intimidation. People should feel free to highlight unsafe practices without such fears. I emphasise the necessity of union representation, recognition and involvement to prevent that.
There ought to be tougher prosecution and enforcement policies. To date, fines have widely been seen as inadequate in the light of the injuries and fatalities involved. More must be done, through the HSC and elsewhere, to encourage the development of a safety culture. Of course the HSC must have the necessary facilities both to meet the needs it has already identified and to enable us to play a part in developing safety policies within the Community.
The Government should further emphasise their commitment to health and safety at work. Unfortunately, they have sent out the wrong signals as a result of their attitude to the industrial injuries scheme, which has gradually been eroded by successive social security Acts. One cannot help thinking that the Government would like to jettison it altogether. In doing so they seem to be indicating that they do not appreciate that some working environments are inherently hazardous and that the workers within them must have that additional protection.
I believe that this debate will provide an opportunity to highlight some of our anxieties and I await the Government response with interest. I beg to move for Papers.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. Her exposition of some of the defects of the existing regime was authoritative and calm. Today's debate could lead to a limited health and safety reappraisal of industrial relations with the object of introducing recognition procedures, so establishing a new dimension of co-operation between employers and those who are employed.
That new dimension would have to be established in any event in order to implement certain recommendations—which I shall come to later—of the Cullen Report. As part of the reappraisal there could be a wider impact upon the improvement of safeguards for health and safety at work generally. If such were to ensue the gratitude expressed to the noble Baroness for having introduced the debate and for

271
having afforded this opportunity for open and constructive discussion would extend beyond your Lordships' House.
It is appreciated that my noble friend the Minister —to whom we all extend the warmest of welcomes and whose contribution cannot but enhance this occasion —may well not be in a position to comment on such matters as the new dimension. By the form of the Motion as tabled the provisions to which reference is made would appear to be the series of statutory instruments and the structure under the existing regime. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will be able to deal with that in due course. We shall look forward to his contribution.
It is evident from the Cullen Report—it has been evident for a very long time—that as far as improved safeguards for health and safety at work are concerned, the issuing of these instruments can afford no substitute whatever for a new dimension of co-operation, such instruments being only part of the effective steps to be taken. The case for taking further steps raises questions of considerable importance affecting the welfare of those who work and their families, the continuity of production of goods and the provision of services and the safety of the public who avail themselves of such services.
Although responsibility for health and safety lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of management, I agree with the noble Baroness that the trades unions have an important contribution to make. As she puts it, they have a key role in motivation; first, on training, which is essential, and, secondly, in some sort of advisory capacity on the board of management by nomination of members who have actually done the jobs on which health and safety depend.
Lord Cullen's report acknowledged at paragraph 21.83 that such controversial matters as industrial relations were beyond the scope of his terms of reference. However, paragraphs 21.73 to 21.87 recommend the involvement of the workforce and trade union participation. In addition, at paragraph 21.67 it is said that the regulations should require stated objectives to be met rather than prescribe detailed measures to be taken. At paragraph 21.84 there is reference to the appointment of safety representatives by the trades unions; at paragraph 21.79 reference to the problems of recognition. Since the 1971 Act there has been no machinery for the resolution of recognition disputes. The system of collective bargaining on conditions of service inevitably has proved unequal to the task on matters of health and safety at work.
This is not the occasion to consider recognition procedures under Sections 44 and 45 of the 1971 Act which, although complex and cumbersome, have worked tolerably well in practice. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who has great experience of these matters, and the noble Baroness will agree with my assessment. Indeed, it is not appropriate to comment upon the relevant paragraphs 8 to 15 of the code of practice provisions. The hope must be that as part of the reappraisal a simplified procedure can be
272
worked out by government in consultation with the trades unions and the CBI, and that discussions take place soon not only in the context of the implementation of the recommendations of the Cullen Report, to which I have referred, but in the wider context of health and safety at work generally.
It is understood that under the 1974 Act it is the intention of government to issue a series of regulations which reflect the health and safety requirements of modern advances in technology. It is also understood that within the European Community framework the health and safety items of the social action programme are supported in principle, as is the case with the workplace directive, the personal protective equipment directive and certain other directives. But harmonisation and effective enforcement by the Commission are absolutely essential if unequal competitive situations between member states are to be avoided and the Council of Ministers must make due financial provision to those ends. I have no doubt Her Majesty's Government will take all possible steps to generate the necessary political will as between heads of state and the Council of Ministers. In the European Community context, I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could give some assurance on that point and on any proposals for statutory instruments to improve the existing regime.
On health and safety at work reappraisal of our industrial relations, all that I respectfully ask is that the papers on this Motion be given due consideration. This is not the pipedream of a visionary; it is a tentative application of common sense in the light of experience.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am glad as always to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I cannot go quite as far as he has, certainly not in advocating, if I understood him correctly, that union representatives, as opposed to employee representatives should sit on company boards to deal with the subject of health and safety. I am sure, however, that he was right to emphasise the importance of employee involvement in these matters. I shall have a word to say about that later.
As the noble Lord rightly said, responsibility for health and safety at work lies primarily with management. In much of manufacturing industry a considerable degree of risk is necessarily involved in producing the goods and services on which our standard of living depends. In practice, there is often a conflict between the interests of production and those of safety, particularly in determining how scarce resources are to be allocated. I well recall from my experience in the chemical industry how difficult it sometimes is to strike a proper balance between them.
I gladly pay tribute to what our best firms are doing to achieve safe working. For instance, the great company for which I worked has for long taken into account health and safety as factors in its management performance appraisal system. Indeed it now goes further and links managers' pay to success in meeting

273
environmental targets. Having said that, I am sure that further steps can and should be taken to bring employers generally up to the level of the best.
In preparing for this debate, I turned, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to the last annual report of the Health and Safety Commission. In the foreword to the report the chairman observed:
"The European Community has now to be regarded as the principal engine of health and safety law affecting the UK".
The chairman noted that directives concerning occupational safety may now be introduced on the basis of qualified majority voting under the Single European Act.
I was glad that he went on to say:
"We have made clear to our European friends some of the difficulties we see in an over-hasty provision of new law, particularly without assurance that it can be enforced with equal determination in all Member States. We have also sought to insist that Member States should make their own arrangements for subsidiary detail, subject to European agreement on general principles".
In my view the Health and Safety Commission has struck just the right note. There is a danger that in this matter the European Commission could overstep the mark. For instance, Sub-Committee C of your Lordships' European Communities Committee, on which I have the honour to sit, recently considered a draft directive on working time. The proposals include provisions relating to minimum rest periods and limits on night work, shift work, overtime and even annual holidays. The European Commission maintains that those proposals are justified on health and safety grounds. On that point the committee received conflicting evidence. However, what I found most disconcerting was that before issuing the draft directive the Commission had not even consulted the Community's own advisory committee on health, safety and hygiene about its proposals. Against that background I welcome the aim of our Health and Safety Commission to try to ensure that new Community based legislation, like new UK legislation, is properly proportioned to the risks with which it deals.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I have read —at least in part—the Cullen Report on the Piper Alpha disaster. I was struck —fully in line with my own experience, if I may say so—by the way in which Lord Cullen referred to training as a key point in both his summary and recommendations. For example, he said:
"Evidence as to training for emergencies showed that the induction was cursory and … the training of persons with special duties in an emergency did not take place with the frequency laid down".
He noted:
"Management … failed to ensure that emergency training was being provided as they intended. The safety policies and procedures were in place; the practice was deficient".
I suggest that some at least of those dicta could well be transposed and applied with equal justification to other recent disasters.
274
What can the Government do to help? Only a month ago this House held a debate on training. Like other noble Lords I expressed regret that in the absence of a government lead it had been left to the CBI to arrange for representatives of the TUC, the chambers of commerce, training and enterprise councils, local authorities and educational organisations—almost everyone except the Government—to meet in an effort to draw up national training targets. The CBI's initiative followed the Government's decision not merely to withdraw support from the targets previously set for the 1990s by Sir Norman Fowler when he was Secretary of State, but to abandon any further attempt to set such objectives. As I see it, there is no reason why national targets should not encompass health and safety as much as other matters. In this there is no need for legislation but the Government should be prepared to give a lead.
That brings me to the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, raised; namely, employee involvement. At paragraph 18.48 of the report, Lord Cullen, says,
"It is essential that the whole workforce is committed to and involved in safe operations. The first-line supervisors are a key link in achieving that as each is personally responsible for ensuring that all employees, whether the company's own or contractors, are trained to and do work safely and that they not only know how to perform their jobs safely but are convinced that they have a responsibility to do so".
Lord Cullen—the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has already made some reference to this matter—goes on to stress the value of a safety committee system as a means of providing for new ideas and solutions to safety problems to be brought up and for passing verbatim and uncensored safety comments up the management line. He says also that the system helps to reinforce the principle that each employee is responsible for his own safety and that of his fellow workers.
I do not think that that paragraph can be improved on as a statement of the importance of involving all employees in seeking to promote health and safety at work.
Is there more that the Government should do to promote employee involvement in this area? On a number of occasions in the past I have argued that the time has come to make it a statutory requirement that in every organisation which employs more than a certain number of people there should be consultative bodies of some kind. Within them, health and safety are certainly matters which should be discussed.
In this Chamber we can only talk; it is for others to act. But at least our contributions to this discussion will provide evidence of the importance that we attach to the matter of health and safety at work. After all, it is a subject which should not give rise to political controversy. Indeed, the noble, Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when replying to the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, last June on the Channel Tunnel workforce, reminded us that the 1974 Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act is itself an outstanding example of the common ground on which we can all stand, for it was a Conservative government

275
that drew up that legislation and a Labour government that enacted it. I am sure that that is the best way by which further steps in this field should be taken.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, it is some time since I spoke in this House, and I am delighted to be involved in a debate which concerns health and safety in industry. First, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden? She really adorns that Front Bench very well indeed and she introduces subjects which are worthwhile discussing. I have nothing but admiration for her.
This is a non-political matter—an absolutely non-party matter. Anybody who is not concerned with health and safety at work must be stark raving mad. So it is a question of what is the right approach, what is the best bet and what is the way in which to deal with this subject? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that this is a non-party matter. That is about the only point on which we agree.
I am taking part in this debate because of my personal interest in the construction industry. I was 37 years in the other House, during which time I was a junior Minister of Housing; I knew something of the construction industry. Later I became Minister of Public Building and Works and I really came to know the subject well. It was at that time that I learned about the Construction Industry Training Board. I discovered what the best elements of that industry were trying to do. Certain parts of that industry are a credit to the nation, but certain sections of it are a discredit.
I once inquired into the whole building industry and discovered that 52 or 53 per cent. of it consisted of a man with a boy and a bucket. That part of the industry is absolute rubbish. We are not concerned with those people. We cannot do much with them and we cannot control them. But the other 50 per cent. or so can be controlled—not necessarily by legislation from this House, but by contracts. The employers in those decent firms say exactly what should be done and how it should be done.
That brings me on to the industry's approach to this matter. I have mentioned about the 50-odd per cent. of good firms that are worth talking about. I should like to put it on record that I have no vested interest in this matter. I do not get paid by anybody. I have been approached many times but no individual firm pays me. So I speak without any interest at all, purely impartially, and I know of the background.
The Construction Industry Training Board is a good example of what ought to be done to try to help in health and safety at work. One of the courses that it runs is about health and safety. It is part of the training. That is why I want to explain why the CITB should be encouraged and extended and why this Government, above all governments, should try to make certain that the CITB and all it stands for carries on doing what it is doing now.
276
The board was originally set up in March 1964 under the Industrial Training Act 1964 which was subsequently amended by the Employment and Training Act 1973 and the Industrial Training Act 1982. The three main objectives of the Industrial Training Act were to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained men and women at all levels of industry; to secure an improvement in the quality and efficiency of industrial training, and to spread the training more evenly across firms. That was the object of the establishment of the CITB, and health and safety at work was part of its attitude to industry generally.
I should like to talk about the membership. Today there are 56,000 local firms associated with the CITB, so I am not talking about rubbish. How does the board get its members? In the main, the board is appointed by the Minister and at the moment it is employer-related. That means that the chairman is related to the employers' side which suits them fine. It is their business anyway. However, the board represents the interests of those who work in the industry. It represents the trade unions. The Transport and General Workers' Union and UCATT have a seat; and, believe it or not, the educationists, whoever they may be, also have a seat. I suppose that they are people who can read and write. So it is a board which is truly representative.
I should now like to turn to how the board gets its money, because if we talk about health and safety we must also talk about those who work in the industry being conscious of health and safety in their job. My noble friend Lady Turner said that the construction industry has the highest percentage of accidents of any industry in the country. That is why it is imperative that the CITB is encouraged. At the moment, 42 per cent. of its income comes directly from the membership by voluntary levy. The remaining 58 per cent. comes from the government of the day. We are talking about £173 million which is no mean figure. It is not something to be ignored and thrown away. The Government ought to recognise that in this body they have the potential for a good job of work on safety.
It is important to state how many are undergoing training. During 1989–90, a total of 22,000 young people started their training under the CITB youth training scheme. Another 16,000 took part in the CITB National Training Centre Courses of various types. What are the courses? They are piling, plant operation, steeple-jacking, motorway barriers and, much more important, health and safety at work. That is where it spent the £173 million.
How long does a course last? Some courses last only two to three days, while others go on for over a year. The pattern is very varied. Let us now see how the £173 million is spent and what are the results. It is estimated that two-thirds of the trainees under instruction complete their two-year training and are taken on by employers. This compares favourably with the national picture over the years. A large proportion of those trainees become apprentices and continue their training after completion of the youth training programme.

277
I have another interesting figure which I was given the other day about youngsters. In 1988–89, the number of school-leavers decreased, but the number on youth training schemes formulated by the CITB went up. The board took over 22 per cent. of the entire output of schools for its training schemes. The young people on youth training courses are likely to be taken into employment with indentures, and increased earnings during apprenticeship are linked with satisfactory progress at six-monthly intervals.
I appeal to the Minister. If he has anything worthwhile to say tonight then, for goodness sake, will he say something about the CITB? The Government keep poking their nose into this subject and reforming it. The CITB was reconstituted following a major review of the remaining ITBs during 1989. Industry pressure for the retention of the statutory level was the principal reason for the construction industry being the only industry to retain its ITB as a statutory body.
I am asked to say that the CITB welcomes the fact that the new board is employer-led, which enables it to work more closely with the employers' federations. But the government department responsible for the CITB is now that part of the Employment Department known as the Training Enterprise Education Department—formerly the Training Agency, and before that the Manpower Services Commission.
I understand that that body has been investigated again and again and we now have the situation regarding the CITB that the Government of the day have agreed only to prolong its existence for a further three years. After three years it will be reinvestigated —and that means 1992. However, the industry is convinced that construction will need a statutory levy in future to support its training. This can be operated only through a statutory ITB, and its training requires stability and long-term investment to be effective.
Now that a new employer-led board has been created, the Government should show their confidence in the industry's employers by ensuring the long-term future of the CITB. Is that too much to ask? We are asking the Government to say they have great confidence in the CITB and that its future is assured. If the Minister does not do that, let me tell him that the employers who are there now will say, "You do it, brother: somebody else work it out". That is rather sad because that training—and here I am back to my original point—is at the heart of all that my noble friend has been talking about: the whole question of whether or not health and safety can be part of the workforce.
The construction industry—I speak here without any vested interest—is worth supporting. We must remember it is a barometer of this nation: if it is doing well as an industry, the nation is doing well but if it is not, the nation is doing badly. That is a fact of life. I know very well—and of course I shall put this on the record straight away—that the first priority for Britain today is to beat the wretched man called Saddam Hussein. That takes precedence over everything—over everything I have said and uttered today. But the great thing about our democracy is that we can talk about
278
other matters while we are in the middle of a crisis. I am very much aware of the time I have taken and all I can say is that I beg this Government now to make certain that they look after the CITB and give it the assurances it wants to enable it to continue its job of work.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, may I first welcome the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, to his new and, I think, rather difficult brief. I wish him success but since I am in Opposition not too much success.
The aims of the Health and Safety Commission and the Executive, formulated as a result of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, have never seriously been challenged, as we have heard from other speakers, and today they enjoy widespread acceptance and support. Public awareness of the HSE's role is reflected in the increased number of complaints which are received. In the 1989–90 report, to which my noble friend Lady Turner referred in her excellent introduction, the director general reports an increase of 50 per cent. over the two years to 1990 and an impressive 130,000 telephone inquiries per annum.
It is disturbing to learn from that same director general's report that in the London area responses now have to be restricted to cases which on the basis of verbal complaint are judged to be strongly based. Many complaints by members of the public are not investigated at all. As the chairman points out in the same report, 10 years ago the Health and Safety Executive was bigger than it is now and yet it had fewer responsibilities.
No one objects to a requirement on public bodies to make efficient use of resources, but these items in the report would seem to indicate that the resources now available are not sufficient for the task to be done properly. Surely the investigation of complaints is the first requirement for such a body. The maintenance of public confidence demands that this should be so, and the fact that it is not so must cast doubt on some of the statistics in the report. If not all the complaints are investigated, not all legitimate complaints are recorded.
The chairman's remark about increased responsibilities brings me to one of the two areas I am concerned about today. One is the problem of GMOs —I am sorry, I have forgotten the actual words and I am using the acronym, but they are genetically engineered organisms which are released into the environment. During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill (which is now an Act) questions were raised on the control and monitoring of GMOs. It emerged from government replies at that time that this work would be undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive, although the Minister said that at that time its inspectors lacked the appropriate environmental expertise.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, concluded that HSE inspectors, subject to additional recruitment and

279
training, would be well placed to gain the necessary additional expertise. He said (at Col. 2002 of Hansard) on 2nd July 1990:
"All things considered, the most sensible and efficient arrangement therefore seems likely to be one in which HSE acts on behalf of DoE and other departments under an agency agreement".
He continued:
"The Committee will be pleased to know that we already have arrangements for such an agreement well in hand".
Later on the same day, when he was questioned about the level of resources available to implement this part of the Act, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said, (at col. 2003):
"The Government have repeatedly made it clear that resources will be made available to do the work required under the Bill. That applies as much to Part VI as to the rest of the Bill".
Can the Minister say what has happened in regard to Part VI of the Act? Has recruitment been achieved and has training been put in hand? Have adequate resources been made available for all the new HSE requirements under the Environmental Protection Act? A whole raft of new responsibilities was placed on the HSE.
As a vice-president of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, my second area of concern is that of local authority environmental health officers. Local authority environmental health officers have had a considerable input into the enforcement of health and safety at work in particular sectors as defined by the Health and Safety Enforcement Allocation Regulations. I shall mention just a few of them: retail/wholesale, exhibitions, office activities, catering services, residential accommodation—there is a list of 13 areas in which environmental health officers take on the role of the Health and Safety Executive inspectors.
The split of enforcement between the local authorities and the HSE seems to work surprisingly well. There is good local and national liaison between the HSE, the local authorities and the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. The local authority unit of the HSE is led by an EHO, and others work for the HSE on secondment. In addition, when appropriate the HSE staff will provide background knowledge for EHOs, for example, if there has been an accident involving an unusual piece of equipment. So altogether it works well.
However, in 1990 the local authorities took over responsibility for additional premises which were transferred to them from the HSE. These premises were low risk in relation to the HSE's work but compared with others in the local authorities' priority system they were often high risk. The effect of this was that often premises previously allocated to the local authority became less of a priority and therefore might be visited less frequently. We are back again to the question of resources. The increase in the number of premises coupled with the shortage of EHOs, which I understand is about 400 nationally—quite a significant number—is likely to have resulted in the work of the EHOs becoming more reactive. They can react
280
only to complaints and often have no spare capacity to undertake visits and inspections to prevent accidents and improve safety.
Other noble Lords have mentioned EC directives which put extra burdens on the HSE. Indeed, eight are in transition at present. That will increase the burden on HSE inspectors and EHOs; for example—again I shall not read out the whole list—there is an EC proposal on VDUs (visual display units) and on part-time and temporary employees, personal protection equipment and so on.
The European directives do not comment upon who should enforce the legislation. Obviously for employees local contact with the enforcers is important and environmental health officers can undertake health and safety inspections in conjunction with other work, thus making them cost-effective. However, whoever undertakes the work, extra resources will be needed. Neither local authorities nor the HSE will be able to absorb them without support.
Finally, there is anxiety as regards home working. Currently factory type activities must be registered but office type work need not be. The use of VDUs in home working is becoming commonplace.
To sum up, the need for an efficient, comprehensive health and safety monitoring service is as great now as it was in 1974 when the Act became law. It is essential that we should continue to build on our existing system so that it can meet the new challenges of the next century and our much more complicated working environment.
6.42 p.m.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, I do not wish to lower the tone of what until now has been an excellent debate nor to spoil the Minister's first venture into these difficult areas. I wish him well, as I am sure do other noble Lords.
Much of what I wanted to say has already been said better by other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. He inadvertently stole the quotation which I had prepared from the Health and Safety Commission's latest report. In what remains of my speech, most of which has been confined to the mental wastepaper basket, I wish solely to concentrate on the European Community aspect by contributing, as it were, a postcard from Brussels to your Lordships' debate because I sit on the European parliamentary committee which deals with those matters.
The first point which I should like to report to the House is that the Health and Safety Commission and Executive are held in the highest regard by the institutions of the European Community. Not only do they have a comprehensive knowledge of how those institutions function but they have succeeded in conveying their views with a remarkably effective record of penetration. That should be noted and I hope that the Government will be aware of that when in the future policy making is required upon those complicated matters.
As the Commission itself notes, the whole centre of gravity in these very difficult issues—the interface between people and capitalism—is now moving faster

281
and faster across the Channel. If we are to discuss those issues with any degree of first-hand authority, we must observe what is happening there rather than waiting until later on and then complaining about what is alleged to have been imposed upon us. People there would be willing to listen to us if we were to go there early. Indeed, Sub-Committee C here makes informed comments in detail at the appropriate time on these issues.
Other noble Lords have touched upon a number of proposals. I shall not dwell on any of them in detail except one by way of illustration. There has been a directive on exposure to asbestos which is a peculiarly cruel form of hazard to those who work in premises affected by it. The first irony to note is that the European Commission building in Brussels is riddled with the worst form of asbestos and is being evacuated. Therefore, the Commission is not complying with legislation on that topic which is already on the European statute book.
The second irony is that the country—and I shall not name it—which held the chair of the Council of Ministers when the modern consolidated legislation on this topic was being dealt with had neither enforced nor implemented the first piece of legislation which was passed some few years ago. Therefore, when examining what is suggested by the European Commission it is very important that at the same time, particularly in this country, we take a good look at what is being done to put into practice that which is already agreed. We should be prepared to give additional facilities, powers and bodies—people—to the Commission to make sure that European Community legislation is properly enforced throughout the European Community. Otherwise, as a nation we are Penalised because we enforce it and others do not. That is of particular relevance in this field. It is easy to make symbolic gestures on health and safety if you know that you are not going to enforce the legislation on your own people.
There has been much discussion about Piper Alpha and the subsequent report. The Commission is preparing legislation in this sphere—Community proposals on offshore installations—which is likely to be published shortly. I very much hope that steps will be taken to convey the remarks made in this debate to those drafting the legislation and that those in your Lordships' House more expert than I will make representations because the safety culture which is now developing as a counterpart to 1992 will not merely be British but will be European. We must endeavour to ensure that our best practices become part of what the Commission is putting forward on behalf of the entire Community.
I raise the subject of the Health and Safety Agency. I do not wish to ask my noble friend difficult questions on this occasion. However, it would be of great financial benefit to our country and the people in it if there was an inspectorate of inspectors and, on the lines of the inspectorate in the competition field, a European Community institution which had the right to see whether European Community law was being implemented on the ground, in the workplace, in the
282
factory and on the farm. I believe that that would be very much in the British national interest and would add a great deal to the credibility of the European Community as an institution. I hope that the rather —and I am trying to be kind—tentative proposals put forward by my noble friends in this field and by their counterparts in another place will be greatly reinforced so that there is a proper enforcement of European Community legislation on a fair basis right across the Community, particularly in this sphere. I support all remarks made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in that regard.
This country has a very high reputation on the Continent for the work done by governments of different parties and by different parts of our industry and trade unions in this field. That cannot be said about everything we do but it is quite true on this subject. We need not boast about it every day or run across to Brussels with a big flag saying, "We are the leaders in health and safety and nothing we do is wrong", because, of course, we can learn from others.
However, there is a great deal of respect for the relatively silent work which has been done by us. We should build on that because, if we use the evidence of efforts undertaken in this country, it will be much easier for us to amend and alter in a way which others will find acceptable those proposals which have yet to be put forward or which are already announced and published. For example, I received a letter from a distinguished doctor saying that certain parts of the proposal aiming to protect women in certain occupations may have an unnecessarily adverse impact on women's employment for various technical reasons with which I shall not weary your Lordships now. That may be a solid and valid point. However, if there is too great a tendency to treat the Commission in Brussels as though it were a Labour government in exile, then our points are unlikely to be accepted on their full merits. On that ecumenical note, I shall conclude.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Turner had to wait so long to bring her excellent debate before your Lordships. However, I was delighted to hear her usual succinct and telling introduction.
I am reminded of the occasion when the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crook. To my knowledge he had worked towards it for around 10 years. It is always exciting to see the fruition of one's labours. Prior to that, as many noble Lords will be aware, the legislation was very perfunctory; some dealt with railways, some with shops and some with factories. This Act was a consolidation of legislation which contained something good for every worker.
In Great Britain we are not very good at prevention. The accident never happens to us; it always happens to the other person. I like the philosophy of the TUC of establishing a safety culture; it is something we should cultivate.

283
When I was a Lord Lieutenant and had to greet Princess Beatrice on the pier at Westminster one dear old waterman informed me that the pier was 100 years old, totally rotten and was suddenly about to sink into the river. I expressed the hope that it would not sink on that day. It was a cold November day and even to go down with the Queen would not have been exciting enough for me.
I mentioned the fact to a number of people, who thought it was some kind of joke. However, the more I thought about it the more I realised that all the piers along the Thames are old. One day, as with the "Marchioness", there would be a terrible disaster. That would be followed by the usual inquiry. I commend that point to the Government. I do not ask them to do too much, but they might like to consider it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, spoke of the construction industry. He is quite right; the group he has worked so hard for is the best—but it also comprises a lot of the worst. I had an office in Buckingham Street and watched a beautiful Georgian house opposite being pulled down by a bunch of very cheerful Irish labourers. They were shipped in every Monday from Liverpool—they were obviously cheaper to employ than London workers—and shipped out every Friday. Where they stayed or what they did in between I do not know.
I cannot bear to see people not protecting themselves, and every morning I used to give them a speech as I entered my office. They did not wear any kind of safety harness. I pointed that out to them. I used an old teacher's trick and picked on one. I said, "You look to be around 23 years old to me"—in retrospect all men look 23 to me—"If you fall and break your back you will never work again; what is more, you will not receive a penny compensation". I gave them so many lectures I gather I was christened, "Our Lady". I do not think that phrase was used in an apostolic sense.
That was a clear example of lack of safety protection at work, but no one ever came to inspect the site. I contacted Westminster Council. A very energetic lady was sent along; she made so many recommendations that the next time anyone was asked to visit the site they sent a man—she had been promoted.
Many things must be done to put this wonderful Act into practice. Regular inspections of the workplace must be made. I ask noble Lords to inquire how many inspectors there are in their own boroughs. If an inspector attempted to visit every place of business and employment in the course of his career he probably would not make it; there are so few inspectors. We leave the inspections until there are complaints from the workers. That is not how the Act is meant to work.
Workers must be trained. I cannot stress too strongly how thrilled I was to see that recommendation high on the list of TUC priorities. People must be trained. I visited steelworks and watched men lifting enormous pieces of steel and pushing them into furnaces—that is going back a long way. I have
284
watched people in the nuclear industry. I have watched many people doing jobs that I would not have the courage, expertise or any other reason to want to do.
Happily many conditions in industry have improved, but in its train there are other hazards. My noble friend Lady Nicol mentioned some of those hazards. We forget that technologically we have very advanced industries. However, that brings extra hazards which were unknown 30 years ago. Those hazards include the modern office; that dreadful edifice. We see ghastly buildings springing up everywhere. I believe a certain gentleman who was the architect of one office building may be joining your Lordships' House. It is a pity he is not present this evening. Perhaps I could speak to him on this point.
The buildings have brown windows—I have visited a lot of them. Hundreds of computers are being used by young women who sit alongside them. I asked about the hazard to their eyes, their ears and their brain. They said that it was quite all right. Is it? Nobody knows enough about the matter. The technology has not been in being long enough. I believe a hazard exists. Indeed, the sick building syndrome is being examined at the moment.
I have the privilege of being the president of the Institute of Safety and Public Protection. That splendid name encompasses a splendid bunch of people. They are professionals mainly from the boroughs who carry out the difficult task of ensuring public safety. They meet professionally because they want to improve their own skills and knowledge for the best reason of all; the same reason as people join trade unions. Their aims and objects are to provide a body of knowledge with expertise in all relevant aspects of safety and public protection.
I shall give your Lordships a quick run-down to illustrate the requirements needed to be a member. They must be engaged in industrial, commercial, administrative and retail enterprise—just for starters. They must also be familiar with licensing relating to entertainment, safety of sportsgrounds, home safety —many hazards to workers exist in the home—animal welfare and health and emergency planning. Yet there are not enough of them. We constantly introduce Acts of Parliament but never insist that the requisite number of enforcement officers are appointed.
I could say a great deal more but time is limited. I mentioned to my friend that females usually keep to the allotted time; I must therefore ensure that I do not break my own rule.
This is an important debate. I was saddened that more people were not present on the Government Benches. When we discuss money, farm animals or hunting the House is full. If we speak of people, people's accidents and deaths, it is not so full. There should be no deaths in the course of building motorways. It used to be said that every ton of coal carried the blood of a miner. We do not want that to be said of our modern industry. We must strengthen the working of the Act both by better training and by employing more inspectors.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I attempted to persuade some of my noble friends to speak in the debate today using the experience they have gained in the industry in which they had worked for some years. I was quite unsuccessful. That is the reason I find myself, to my surprise, taking part in the debate.
Two years ago this House debated a report from the European committee on the effect of visual display units on the health of those who operate them. At that time I was surprised to find that practitioners of my vocation of journalism were among those affected. In my day those of us who had sold their heart to the old black art, as we put it, were immune from professional stress, we exclude the perils of excessive hospitality which we cheerfully faced. We wrote our copy and headlines with very thick black pencils. However, the younger ones learned to work a manual typewriter with two stabbing fingers. Progress was on the way. All that has gone.
Everything today is done by computer. The joking cry has not been heard during the past few days of these terrible events as they design the big black type. The joking cry, "Boy, send for the type that we used for Queen Victoria's funeral", has not been heard. There are no boys in Fleet Street any more. We got rid of that type long ago.
We live in a different age which has made the composition of newspapers simpler and cheaper, but it seems it is more dangerous. It is not only journalists and particularly sub-editors who are affected. Hundreds of thousands of office workers are now operating or working alongside visual display units. The alleged effect on such workers caused the European Commission to produce a framework directive setting general measures to improve the safety and health of workers in the workplace. They included a handful of directives. Our Select Committee considered that the directive concerning visual display units—VDUs as they are commonly known—warranted closer investigation.
The committee studied the problem carefully, as it always does study the problems put to it, but, alas, it turned the proposal down. It was thought that it was not sufficiently established that the health risks were heavy enough to cause concern or that such risks could not be met by good office management. In some respects the scientific evidence was inconclusive. The committee recommended that employers and trade unions should make every effort to educate those people required to work with VDUs.
It was an unusual, tentative report from the distinguished committee. There were not the hard, clear conclusions that one expects from it. It said that there was probably less risk of stress if the operator could control his workload. The committee did not believe that there was justification for establishing a formal system of breaks from VDU work. One could not escape the cynical feeling that the committee came to the nub of the matter when it said that only if the scientific case was strong was it possible to impose substantial costs on industry. In the present good
286
office management and good explanation were the answers to the problems. That meant that bad office management was left to carry on.
However, the committee hoped that acceptable proposals would be made by the International Standards Association and the Comité Européen de Normalisations. It hoped that the last body, the CEN as it is conveniently known, had an acceptable approach because it preferred a code of practice to regulations. In the debate on the committee report my noble friend Lady Turner regretted its decision. She brought her special and profound union experience to the discussion. She told us that there are five main categories of possible hazard associated with VDUs. There are five main categories of possible injury and hazard. These are RSI—that is to say, repetitive strain injuries—musculo-skeletal strain, stress, skin rashes, eye disorders and possible reproductive hazards.
The committee accepted that most problems can be solved by good office management—and so they can, but, alas, good office management is not universal. There are still many unredeemed Scrooges in the commercial world. I hesitated whether to speak today because the situation now looks more promising than it did two years ago. Since our debate the EC has wisely re-examined the proposals for a Council directive on minimum requirements for work with display screen equipment. Since then the possible ill-effects of the exposure have been explored in Canada with worrying results about radiation.
Last month in another place a Question was put to the Secretary of State for Employment asking him what legislation he intended to bring forward to enable the United Kingdom to meet the requirements of the EC directive on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen units. The Minister answered that the Health and Safety Commission is now currently discussing with the CBI and the TUC the most appropriate way to implement the directive. I do not know whether the Minister who is to answer in this debate has any information to give us about those discussions. It may be that these are early days since the legislation which the Community demands need not be completed until the end of next year. A directive is perhaps less draconian than its name would suggest. I hope that when we come to legislation it will be sufficiently tough and contain enforcement measures.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I rise to speak about the safety conditions and records in the building industry and the Cullen Report on the Piper Alpha disaster. The building industry featured heavily in the speeches made earlier by other noble Lords. I listened with interest to the powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, because of his background with the major trade union involved in the building industry and also because of his loose association with the industry in a political sense. He referred in his speech to the Construction Industry Training Board.
It is as well to put the record straight. The CITB was on its way out. The Government had put their red

287
pencil through it. What finally convinced the Government to continue with the training board was the pressure applied by the big builders themselves through the Building Employers Confederation, other associations and trade unions. It is no accident that the president, Sir Clifford Chetwood, was made the chairman. A great deal of credit must go to him for the fact that the training board was retained. I say no more about that.
Unfortunately I was not here to listen to previous speakers. I expect that they made the point that the building industry now has the worst accident record of all industries. It is important to look at the enormity of what is happening in that industry with accidents. On average there is a fatal accident each week. There are about 150 deaths a year. If that figure is multiplied over a decade, just over 1,500 people have been killed in the building industry. That is carnage by any standard. It is the equivalent of five major pit disasters.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I do not dispute the noble Lord's figures. However, does he understand the need for training in order to make sure that safety is understood?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I was going to make that point. Accidents which took place last year and which were reported to the Health and Safety Executive totalled 21,000. That is a substantial increase. In addition, a substantial number of accidents are never reported. One reason suggested for the substantial increase is the financial position of the industry. Competition for work is so tight that the first casualty is safety conditions. I do not know how the problem can be solved but it is a fact of life that this is happening.
At a TUC sponsored conference a few weeks ago more than a little evidence was given of victimisation on some sites. People who were rigorous in their defence of safety measures were given short shrift by their employers when they found it possible to do so. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that one of the best ways to prevent accidents is to make sure that every operative is aware of the dangers and fully trained in avoiding them. But one fact comes across quite clearly: most accidents are due to operator negligence, and many of them could be avoided if a more rigorous education system existed.
I hope that the Government will reconsider their reluctance to involve trade unions at almost every level, although I know that the trade unions are represented on the training boards. The key to safety lies mostly on the sites. The lads on the site, and not full-time trade union officials, should be the guardians of safety. I hope that the Government will give that greater priority than they have in the past.
In the final part of my speech I should like to deal with the Cullen Report. I am an engineer and a member of the AEU, which lost a good many members in the Piper Alpha disaster. The Cullen Report on this terrible tragedy contains serious criticism of the oil company and of the Department of
288
Energy's safety activities. In the view of those representing the employees, the report vindicated the stance taken by the trade unions over a number of years in respect of health and safety in the North Sea. The series of massive explosions which destroyed the Piper Alpha oil platform on 6th July 1988 caused the loss of 167 lives—the highest death toll in any industrial accident in living memory. There was a mining tragedy in Wales in the early 1930s but the Piper Alpha tragedy was by far the greatest industrial disaster this nation has experienced. We have a duty to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again.
The unions have stressed time and again that where they are prevented from functioning normally, health and safety is one of the casualties and is not given the priority it deserves. There must be a counterbalance to the employers' motivation to maximise production so as to achieve maximum profit—which sometimes leads the most honest of men or women to cut corners and to say "Oh, it will be all right", when very often the reverse is the case. It is blatantly obvious that a very rare, occasional visit from an overworked inspector from the Department of Energy, which equally wishes to maximise production, will in no way provide such a counterbalance, especially when we remember that the inspectors have to rely on the operators to provide them with transport. Even these rare visits are telegraphed to the companies well in advance and a surprise inspection to catch someone doing something unauthorised or dangerous goes by the board.
Too many people in government have allowed a dogmatic dislike of trade unions to blind them to the obvious fact that the dangerous bucket shops, the frighteningly unsafe sweat shops the world over, are places where trade unions are, in one way or another, prevented from functioning. We dealt some time ago with the conditions of machinists in sweat shops. The Government would not listen.
There is a clear correlation between the prevention of trade unionism and poor safety records. The reason is quite simple. Only an employee with the strength of a trade union behind him or her will feel safe to challenge the employer and insist that unsafe working conditions are corrected. The fact that these comments apply to the offshore industry is proven in many ways. One is that the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, found it necessary in his report to recommend protection for safety representatives against victimisation. The noble Lord must have been convinced that such practices were taking place. The slightest hint that such protection is needed clearly illustrates the 19th century attitudes of some employers in that highly dangerous industry. If that seems harsh I ask the House to consider the chronic safety record in the North Sea, with fires, explosions, deaths and disasters. What kind of employer would want to take even the slightest chance that this could occur?
Another indicator is to compare the better safety record in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea with the British one and keep in mind the fact that the same companies operate in both sectors. Where the company involved is the same, the poorer British safety record must be due to other factors. The two

289
main differences are that trade union involvement is bitterly opposed in the British sector—I know that from my own inquiries—while it is encouraged by the Government in the Norwegian sector; and the Norwegians have an independent regulatory body which oversees health and safety. When making a Statement in another place the Secretary of State, Mr. Wakeham, indicated that the Government had accepted the Cullen Report and would make certain recommendations in the future. Over two months have already elapsed and no changes have taken place. My union tells me that there is still the practice that if someone is keen on safety he may be given only a fortnight's contract. The company can get rid of him in that way.
I asked a question of the Minister a few weeks ago. I was very disappointed by his answer. I put that question because I believe that the key to the safety issue lies in the appointment of safety committees. The Cullen Report recommends that responsibility for safety should be taken away from the Department of Energy and given to the Health and Safety Executive. The report also recommends that representation on the safety committees should be divided between employers, the inspectorate and the trade unions. I urge the Government to follow that recommendation with the utmost zeal and introduce it as quickly as possible. On the trade union representation there should be a preference for men on the site who work in the industry. When appointed, those people should have full rights not only to debate and to make suggestions but to vote. They should have equal rights with the employer for whom they work. No one is yet convinced that there is a safety drive in the North Sea.
One death in the oil industry in the North Sea is like the death of a miner; it is one too many. As a nation we have a duty to try to eliminate the possibility of such deaths to the best and maximum of our ability. If the Minister does not have the time to reply to me on this issue tonight, I hope that he will take on board what I have said and draw the matter to the attention of the appropriate Ministers in the Cabinet so that they can deal with it.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am sure that we were all pleased to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, thinks that all men look about 23 years old. That confirms the view that when she was advocating the replacement of old piers she was really talking about the River Thames and not Members of this House.
In calling attention to the case for further steps to improve health and safety, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, reminded us that this would never be an area for complacency. I especially welcomed her emphasis on the construction industry and on the problems created by smaller firms. The debate makes one realise the sheer size of the topic, covering as it does everything from AIDS to asbestos. It reminds us of the truism that illness and accidents account for far more lost working days than strikes ever have or indeed ever will.
In this country we are fortunate in having a reasonably modern framework of legislation. The
290
Robens Report concluded that there was too much law. The resulting Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was therefore largely an enabling Act. The general duties imposed upon employers by Section 2 of that Act are not absolute duties, nor are they duties to do what is required so far as is practicable. Employers have the less onerous duty to do what is required,
"so far as is reasonably practicable".
That phrase appears six times in Section 2. However, the prevalence of the phrase must not be allowed to blur the impact of stricter duties when they are stipulated in regulations, nor to weaken the effect of guidance notes and codes of practice issued by the Health and Safety Executive. All such material should be scrutinised to ensure that the blurring is not happening.
The norm upon which the Robens Report was based was the directly employed and unionised workforce. Since that time, there have been changing trends in employment relationships and in the traditional workplace which require a review of how safety systems and policies should adapt. Homeworkers have already been mentioned. There are also seconded workers, temporary and part-time workers and job sharers. These are all people who can be especially vulnerable.
There are two particular problems in respect of these workers. The first is the availability of remedies for breach of common law duties which depend upon the existence of a traditional contract of employment. The so-called "marginal" workers do not fit easily into the traditional model and the self-employed do not fit in at all. I am sure that it is not only lazy lawyers like myself who groan when having to advise on a typical accident to an ostensibly self-employed construction worker who has fallen from some faulty scaffolding. One has to unscramble the inter-relationships and duties of the main contractor, a chain of subcontractors and the independent contractor. It is salutary to read at page 60 of the 1989–90 report of the Health and Safety Commission of the increase in self-employment in the construction industry and also of the increase in accidents in respect of such people. That topic has already been covered in the debate and it is one that cannot be emphasised too strongly.
Questions of compensation, indemnity and insurance which arise in such situations should not, I suggest, depend upon artificial legal labelling as to whether someone is employed or self-employed. Any changes in that direction will be consistent with the main scheme of the 1974 Act, which extends benefit of some duties to the so-called "self-employed".
The second problem in the development of a so-called flexible firm or marginal workforce is enforcement. Different hazards in different settings are less easy to identify, evaluate and control. It is essential that employers are educated into identifying hazards, that they develop procedures to protect their non-core workers and that they do not see such workers as somehow being second class employees who are not entitled to insurance and indemnity.

291
Enforcement also depends upon manpower. The increase in legislation and the increasing encouragement of the proliferation of small businesses must put a greater burden on the inspectorate. That point has already been mentioned. An inspector's exercise of his discretion to prosecute or to persuade should not be governed by manpower commitments and limitations. I ask whether the Government are satisfied with present staffing levels and present staff retention.
I must also express my concern that the transfer of responsibilities from the Health and Safety Inspectorate to local authority inspectors should not become a short-term expedient to cope with the pressures on the former. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, expressed the view that the present division of responsibility between the Health and Safety Inspectorate and local authority inspectors works well. I hope that she is right. I say that because the division of functions between the two can, especially when pressures mount, create the potential for silly demarcations schemes as to who is responsible for what. I have some experience of that in relation to the responsibility for inspecting an office when an office happened to be apparently within a factory. I defy anyone to unscramble the provisions of Section 85 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 and Section 175 of the Factories Act.
The growing number of small firms, the reduction in unionisation and the financial pressures on all employers increase the need to encourage employers to plan and budget for health and safety. In a recession it is all too tempting to cut back on maintenance of equipment and on the use of safety experts. Small firms must have access to expertise. It is also tempting to rely upon the fear of unemployment in the workforce in order to suppress claims for compensation.
The foreword to the 1983 annual report of the Health and Safety Executive contained a warning of that risk. It stated that,
"in hard times it is training and supervision generally that are the first to go. The raw recruit is set to work almost immediately".
It then related the following story:
"The extent of the fear of the loss of one's job may perhaps be gauged by the parents who offered to pay for damage to a conveyor when their 17-year old son jammed his shovel into it to stop it after his arm became trapped at the tail drum. They offered to waive their claim for compensation if only their son could continue in work".
Where there is no union organisation, it is more, not less, important to have recognised employee elected safety representation. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Rochester. In that context the repeal in 1975 of Section 2(5) of the 1974 Act was a retrograde step. I hope that the Government will now look again at the matter.
As my noble friend pointed out and as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, restrained himself from repeating, the foreword to the 1989–90 report states that the European Community has now to be regarded as the principal engine of health and safety law. One sympathises with the view expressed in the
292
memorandum of the Department of Employment dated March 1989 that much of what is coming from Europe is already implicit in our law. That leads us to consider whether, and to what extent, it is necessary to make explicit the requirements coming from Europe, thereby running the risk once again of having too much law. However, the belief that the 1974 Act is a good enough basis for many of the European directives can be no excuse for not responding positively to the massive programme which is under way in Europe.
As a lawyer one is, I suppose, inevitably concerned primarily with the rather negative aspect of health and safety; namely, compensation when things go wrong. I had to struggle for three days to obtain a pitiful sum for an exemplary worker who lost his eye in the service of his employers, who had not provided him with proper protective goggles. It was especially irksome to receive on his behalf —on the basis of full liability —a miserly sum while other public figures were receiving enormous sums from libel juries. I do not apologise for saying that damages, especially for the smaller type of injury, are not high enough.
In an Adjournment Debate in another place last week, it was interesting to read that the Government may be looking again at no-fault compensation. Even if I am wrong about that, it is a topic which needs further consideration, especially now that structured settlements have come into being. I ask that the opportunity be taken for the House to debate that topic once again.
7.32 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for putting down the debate today and I should like to join previous speakers in welcoming the Minister to our debate. He is fortunate indeed to be starting with the relatively low-temperature subject of health and safety rather than with our annual bun fight over the birth of yet another of the sons of Frankenstein. We believe that we may be saved another son of Frankenstein in the immediate future, and so we can concentrate on the far more important issues involved in tonight's debate.
We have so far had 10 speakers in the debate. It seems to me that they have all testified to the case for the Motion put down by my noble friend. There have been three themes in the debate: that there are signs of deterioration in the position on health and safety after 20 years or so of advance; that there are serious limitations in the institutions for dealing with health and safety after their reconstruction in 1974; and that there are a considerable number of practical, modest proposals, many of which have been put forward by previous speakers, for improving our health and safety record.
For the deterioration I would advance—much of this is merely a summary of what others have said —four pieces of evidence. First, there were all the statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and my noble friends Lord Dean of Beswick and Lady Turner: the fact that the accident rates, after improving significantly in the 1960s and rather more

293
significantly in the 1970s, suddenly became stuck in the 1980s—they showed only slight improvement throughout the 1980s—and have not improved at all since the mid-1980s.
Everything that we know about the industrial mix in this country—the decline of the smoke-stack industries; the decline of iron, steel and coal and so on —would make us expect to see a decline rather than a stagnation in accident rates. No one can seriously doubt—I do not expect the Government to admit it tonight—that some of the major reasons for the decline in the rate of improvement have been the pressures of increased competition, the pressures of the recession and the many cuts the Government have made in the various provisions for social services, and health and safety, and, in particular, cuts in the Health and Safety Commission's budget. We have the figures and they give us good reason to feel worried.
There has also been an increasing number of major accidents which seem to us to be rather worse and rather more extensive than accidents in the past, occurring in industries and occupations which we had been brought up to believe were relatively safe; for example, British Rail and the London Underground. Thirdly, there have been new threats at work and new fears of danger or violence at work; for example, among librarians, in schools, on buses, and in places where we believed that violence was not normally seen. Finally, and this has been mentioned by several speakers, there are the consequences of 1992.
In his report, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, made it clear that a substantial majority of the existing non-tariff barriers in Europe were defended by arguments relating to health and safety. They are all supposed to go. That of course is why the Health and Safety Commission is being inundated with one draft directive after another from the European Commission. One of the most remarkable figures I have seen in a public document for a long time is contained in this year's Health and Safety Commission's annual report in which the commission says that there has been a 60 per cent. increase in the number of meetings in Brussels or overseas. If that rate of increase continues, it will be no wonder that we shall see fewer safety inspectors; they will all be in Brussels. I do not say that they should not go to Brussels; I say that that is one of the reasons why we must have a re-think about the resources that we put at the disposal of the Health and Safety Commission.
I pass to the second line of argument that we have had in the debate. It has been put forward most recently and convincingly by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. That second line of argument is that we should look at the policies that we have been following in this country since 1974, which come out of the great —we can say this in retrospect—Robens Report. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was wrong. It is even better than he suggested. Lord Robens was appointed by Barbara Castle. He investigated and reported to Maurice Macmillan who introduced the Bill which was passed by Michael Foot. It was a wonderful example of what we had in industrial relations legislation in those days—consensus. It was a fine
294
report. As has been said on the other side of the House, it put us in advance of most other countries on health and safety. Even in 1991 most of the points that the Robens Report made are seen to be true: simplification, unification and self-regulation.
We created an excellent agency which we have systematically underfunded ever since. We now know that the Robens Report had a number of post hoc defects that we can now see. It underplayed the role of conflict. As has been said, it failed to advance participation and it left a consistently under-resourced set of institutions because it did not talk about money. One did not talk about money when one produced reports in the 1970s.
The point about conflicts is important. It is true, as my noble friend Lady Phillips said, that there are considerable areas of agreement on health and safety. Everyone wants to get the workers to put on goggles and to wear helmets. Everyone wants to get them to carry through the procedures. The employer is especially keen that they should use all the expensive equipment that he has provided for their use. However, as my noble friend Lord Ardwick said, when it comes to visual display units and whether the workers need to interrupt the flow of their work every 15 minutes in order to have a break, there is a cost involved, and the TUC naturally says one thing and the CBI says another. When it comes to which carcinogenic substances should be included in a schedule against which workers must be protected, the employers will make a short list and the unions will make a long list.
I refer for a moment to Piper Alpha and the amazing list of defects which Lord Cullen listed: the permanent works system; the low standard of fire fighting; inadequate training; the absence of monitoring; and bad management. I do not say that those were the results of the company not spending enough money nor that the company was mean. I say that if the company were ever to carry out half the proposals in the report, it would have to spend a great deal more money than it spends now.
There is a conflict as regards health and safety and therefore we must have legal regulations. As several noble Lords have said, Lord Robens overplayed the self-control, the joint investment, the common interest. There need to be tough measures, some law and some fines. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that even ICI was fined £250,000; Tate & Lyle was fined £250,000. The average fine is less than £1,000 and it is much too low.
I turn to the situation of inspectors on which I wish to make a number of points because it concerns practical proposals. I calculate that we now have 554 inspectors in the field force. They visit 175,000 places a year—316 each. I calculate on this year's report that for 16 million workers the inspectors make 316 visits —one per day. That is farcical. It is not true that the numbers have risen. The maximum number of inspectors was 759 in 1980. In 1988 it was 592. This year I read in the annual report that the field force is 554. That is a decline. In the report this year the director-general, John Rimington stated that renewed growth had come after nearly a decade of increasing

295
difficulty—in other words, cuts—as the functions laid on them had multiplied while their core of experienced staff had dwindled in numbers. That is the position today and it has not been arrested. John Rimington goes on to say that the major recruitment effort they are having to make consumes large resources—he does not say that the men or women are there, he says that they are being recruited—and it means that they are carrying a burden of experience which is making a reduction in the amount of effective work which inspectors can achieve on average. Thus the position is not yet better. My question to the Government is: when will it get better?
I also agree that we ought to have further integration of the inspectorate. As has been said, the Cullen Report makes that suggestion. I do not suppose that the Government can tell us tonight, but I hope that they will tell us soon that they accept that. I agree also with what was said about local authorities. The local authority inspectorate should be integrated with the rest of the inspectorate because at the moment we are starving local authorities. There has been a 24 per cent. reduction in the past two years in the number of officers with that function. Even if they were the right body to do this, it does not have the money.
I also believe that there should be an integration of the railway inspectorate. There is a widespread feeling, not merely confined to the railway unions but among many people in British Rail, that we need to see the full declared independence of the railway inspectorate. We shall not see that until it is fully integrated and made part of the present inspectorate.
Lastly, what about the cost of all this? Most of the cost of what has been suggested tonight would be borne by bad employers and would come out in fines. The rain would rain upon the unjust and there is nothing wrong in that. The direct cost would be very small; I know that is so because I have asked people in the House and they tell me that it is right. The way I read the annual report of the Health and Safety Commission, the cost is £119 million per year. If we double that, in five years it would only be £200 million per year. If we focus on the field staff and on the people behind the lines, it would not cost us more than £150 million per year. That is £10 million a year to do something about health and safety. It is pitiful; it is extremely small. I hope that the Government will tell us that they can do it.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I have listened to the concerns about health and safety at work expressed by noble Lords during this debate, and I can assure the House that this Government are committed to seeing that workplaces enjoy the highest standards of health and safety that are reasonably practicable. Workplace accidents and ill-health can indeed have tragic consequences and are matters which touch us all. I am sure that we are all well aware of the effects of even minor workplace injuries or
296
exposures to harmful substances or processes; and many of us have personal experiences that reinforce our concern.
Health and safety is an area where a degree of common ground should, and I believe does, exist between all parties. The 1974 Health and Safety at Work, &c. Act is an outstanding example of that common ground. The legislation was drawn up by a Conservative Government and put onto the statute book by an incoming Labour Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and other noble Lords have referred to the unacceptable level of accidents in certain industries. The Government are determined to reduce accident levels, although I should point out that viewed over the long term the trend is encouraging. The latest fatal injury rates are at a level less than a third of that 30 years ago and less than half of that 20 years ago. Within manufacturing industry the rate is also only about half that for 1970. I also point out that the available statistics suggest that fatal injuries in the United Kingdom are among the lowest of all EC member states. There is, however, certainly no room for complacency.
With regard to major accidents, the overall picture is that we seem now to have reached a kind of plateau, but there are variations between industries. For example, reported major injury rates in the construction industry have again risen. In addition, we must not forget that health at work is as important as safety and that many illnesses caused by work-related activity can have long latency periods. The Health and Safety Commission's current best estimates suggest that ill-health caused by work gives rise to at least 2,000 premature deaths each year and contributes to a further 8,000.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred eloquently to the importance of safety management in industry. Time and again official reports of disasters across the world—Three Mile Island, Challenger, Bhopal and closer to home Zeebrugge, King's Cross, Clapham and Piper Alpha—have drawn attention to failures by management to ensure adequate control of the risks associated with their organisation's activities. Studies by the Health and Safety Executive have shown that the vast majority of fatal accidents and those causing serious injury could have been prevented by management action. Accidents are not inevitable matters of chance but are subject to management control. It should therefore be possible virtually to eliminate them.
The HSE's accident prevention advisory unit has identified certain common features among organisations which are successful in achieving low levels of accidents. These include a conviction that high standards are achievable; a management which adopts a proactive approach and sets realistic and monitored objectives for health and safety for which managers at every level are held accountable; the systematic identification of hazards arising from the organisation's activities; and the devising and maintenance of systems which ensure that the hazards are eliminated or controlled.

297
It is worth noting that practitioners of such an approach believe their programmes to be cost-effective, especially within the context of an overall loss control programme. I am sure noble Lords will agree that as we enter the 1990s the pursuit of business excellence demands much more than maximisation of profits and is seen by forward looking companies to embody the total well-being of the individual employee and environment, together with the production of total product quality.
Attention has quite rightly been drawn to the importance of training in improving health and safety at work. The 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act requires employers to provide the training needed to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the safety and health of employees. Nor is the UK alone in recognising its importance. European Community directives also place on employers the responsibility of providing adequate training in safety and health.
Training is higher than ever before on the nation's agenda and as a topic for boardroom discussion. This results from a growing recognition of its benefits and from what has been described as a revolution in the field of training. The Health and Safety Commission and Executive are determined that this revolution should bring about improvements in health and safety; effective training is one of the most important ways of developing a safety culture and hence a safer and healthier working environment.
The commission and executive have, therefore, been looking recently at policy and practice on health and safety training. The HSE considered in particular the extent to which national standards and syllabi could increase the effectiveness of health and safety training; how national government training bodies, accrediting bodies and training providers could help promote health and safety training; and the requirements of different groups such as employees, managers, health and safety practitioners and young people. As a result a range of measures will be taken over the next few years to raise the profile and increase awareness of the importance of health and safety training. Ultimately, however, the responsibility for ensuring adequate training must rest with the employer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, referred to the Construction Industry Training Board. The CITB has reviewed its structure and approach over recent years to improve its effectiveness in the future. It maintains a high health and safety profile and seeks to improve standards of health and safety through training packages, advice and courses which plug gaps in the existing training provision.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, referred to Lord Cullen's report on the Piper Alpha disaster. I share the welcome given by the noble Baroness to that excellent report. The Government have accepted the report's recommendations and work is in hand to implement those recommendations as rapidly as is consistent with effective implementation. I hope that that also answers the point that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Earl made some nice remarks about the CITB, but the review that is now being carried out is causing anxiety. Can the Minister offer the CITB some assurances?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I have some further comments to make on the CITB later in my speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to penalties for Channel Tunnel contractors. The Health and Safety Executive has successfully prosecuted contractors three times, and a further four prosecutions are currently in progress. Cases of manslaughter brought against senior management of companies are possible under existing law, but it is often difficult to prove a link in court between senior managers and individual accidents.
The noble Baroness also referred to small businesses. The HSE is concerned about accident rates in small businesses. It has recently produced a report for small firms entitled Safety Pays. That report emphasises the benefits of an effective health and safety policy. A recent HSE initiative in Yorkshire and the North-East targeted small firms' premises resulting in a range of enforcement action and substantial local and national publicity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also referred to the framework directive. The Government are a party to adopting the directive and proposals for implementation are being developed. There have been increases in provision from the Government, who have met the HSC's public expenditure survey bids in full in recent years. The Government increased gross provision to the commission and the HSE by £9 million in 1989–90 to a total of £118 million; and in 1990–91 by £40 million, including £22 million for nuclear safety research, to a total of £158 million, with an additional £2.5 million being provided in the Winter Supplement. As a result of this the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, Dr. John Cullen, was able to write to the Secretary of State at the end of last year,
"I am naturally very pleased that the resources the Commission asked for to take forward our programme of work will be forthcoming in 1991/92. The Commission wish to express their thanks to you for the efforts you made to achieve that outcome".
Those are reassuring words indeed.
In common with other government departments, there was a decline in HSC resources in the early 1980s. However, this trend was reversed in 1988–89. The HSC now has 8 per cent. more inspectors than in 1988–1989, and further increases are planned. However, there is a limit to the number of trainees which the HSC can absorb in any year. That is why the increases are gradual.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to penalties. I agree with the noble Baroness that one of the problems with prosecution as an enforcement weapon has been the low level of fines imposed by the courts. This gives the wrong impression to defendants and to employers generally about how seriously we regard health and safety offences.
In its annual report for 1989–90, the Health and Safety Executive noted signs that the courts were

299
beginning to act severely in cases of serious dereliction of health and safety responsibilities. In 1989–90 provisional figures show an average fine for all courts of £877, a rise of over £300 on the previous year's average. Some exceptional individual fines were also imposed, such as the £250,000 levied against Nobel Explosives in April of last year for the explosion in Peterborough on 29th March 1989.
However, the Government and the Health and Safety Commission and Executive all consider that the average level of fines remains too low. This problem is being tackled on two fronts: by administrative changes to the maximum fine and by HSE inspectors explaining to the courts the seriousness of the health and safety cases they hear. Naturally, if these measures are to be fully effective, magistrates will have to be fully committed to them. Early last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment wrote to the chairman of the Magistrates Association expressing his concern about the low level of fines for health and safety offences. At the invitation of the association, he later published an article in the August edition of The Magistrate. This is an encouraging sign and we hope that magistrates will continue to give health and safety the priority it deserves.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to the Cullen Report. The recommendations in that report on the Piper Alpha disaster were accepted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The Health and Safety Commission was asked to take on responsibility for regulating offshore oil and gas safety. It is intended that the transfer of functions from the Department of Energy to the commission will take place in the spring and arrangements are well in hand. Until then the Department of Energy and the Department of Transport will retain responsibility for offshore safety functions.
HSC's priority will be to make a rapid and effective start on implementing Lord Cullen's recommendations for a new safety regime. This will be a major task. The Government are committed to seeing that this is done promptly, comprehensively and effectively.
The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Rochester, again referred to the Piper Alpha tragedy. Lord Cullen recognised the benefits which trade union involvement in health and safety can bring. Indeed the primary responsibility for health and safety offshore must lie with the operators and their employees who work in the North Sea. Lord Cullen concluded that it would be inappropriate to change the offshore regulations for safety representatives. These regulations will nevertheless be reviewed this year after two years of operation.
The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Rochester, referred to technological change and Europe. Technological developments expected in the 1990s will have a significant potential to benefit but also, unfortunately, to threaten health and safety. One illustration is the continuing rapid growth in the
300
application of computers to the design, operation and maintenance of plants. which presents positive opportunities for removing people from risky locations, strengthening control and reducing human error. It also shifts the onus for decisions from plant operators to designers, reducing the scope for human intervention in a crisis or unforeseen circumstances. In other areas, such as the growing use of biotechnology, we are constantly being presented with new challenges and new potential hazards which must be fully assessed and controlled.
As noble Lords have said, this is a European phenomenon. The Government are committed to furthering health and safety on a Europe-wide basis and ensuring that our own high standards are not only maintained but shared by other member states. That will not only reduce the toll of human suffering but will also reduce the scope for competitive distortions which disadvantage our industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to European Community developments. It is European Community initiatives which have had by far the greatest impact on our domestic legislative programme on health and safety. It is therefore fortunate that the high esteem in which the Health and Safety Executive is held throughout Europe allows the United Kingdom to play a highly influential role in those developments.
I now return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, regarding construction. As I have said, training is a key element in managing a safety culture and I know that the Health and Safety Commission shares that view. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the importance of health and safety training in the construction industry. The construction industry is a key area of concern and health and safety remain a major problem. The industry has invested much time and money in trying to improve its health and safety performance. Some larger companies in particular are behaving in a highly responsible manner. It is also heartening to know that our fatal accident rate is better than those of many other European countries. However, all fatalities represent a personal tragedy and there is no scope for complacency. The Government and the HSC regard the fact that there are still about three deaths each week in the industry as totally unacceptable. Improvements in safety standards must be achieved.
Prime responsibility for bringing about improvements rests with the industry itself. However, as part of the continuing process of promoting long-lasting improvements in standards the HSC has proposed new legislation to strengthen the management of health and safety on construction sites. That is now being developed in parallel with a recently proposed European directive which also addresses the organisation and control of safety on site.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to the investigation of complaints. Public concern over health and safety issues has grown rapidly in recent years. The noble Baroness referred to the increasing volume of complaints received by the HSE. Noble Lords will realise that those complaints will vary in

301
their seriousness and the HSE must judge what action to take, according to which cases are likely to be strongly based. All fatal accidents are investigated. However, noble Lords may be assured that HSE's inspectors will pursue complaints and take enforcement action to the highest levels in companies not measuring up to the standards expected of them.
The noble Baroness also drew attention to the health and safety of home workers. I remind your Lordships that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act applies to all employers and employees alike. Enforcement action has been taken in respect of home workers at risk.
My noble friend Lord O'Hagan mentioned the subject of European Community initiatives, which have had by far the biggest impact on our domestic legislative programme on health and safety. It is therefore fortunate that the high esteem in which the Health and Safety Executive is held throughout Europe allows the United Kingdom to play a highly influential role in those developments. The Government are pressing for European directives to be properly implemented throughout Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, mentioned the subject of VDUs. I shall touch briefly on that issue. As noble Lords have indicated, an EC directive on the use of VDUs was adopted last year. Work has now begun to determine how that directive can best be implemented in the United Kingdom. The Health and Safety Commission will issue a consultative document later this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, also referred to genetically modified organisms. HSE inspectors receive a high standard of training and already include experts in the appropriate areas. They comprise the widest group of expert professionals in the public service inspectorates. It is for that reason that they will deal with environmental matters in co-operation with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned marginal workers. I can assure the noble Lord that health and safety at work regulations apply to all working people —temporary, part-time, self-employed or on contract. New control measures are being developed to deal with the special problems of workers on sub-contracts.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred to violence at work. Employment Ministers share his concern. They have spoken out in support of the HSC's committee on violence to staff at work which is looking at ways to reduce violence and to care for staff affected by it.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and other noble Lords referred to HSE resources. I can only repeat that the Government have met the HSC's budget requests in full year after year. I think that that includes the past four years.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I understand what he is saying. But I am not quite clear about what he said earlier. Can he enlighten me? I thought that he said that the HSC was committed to reversing the decline in the number of inspectors. According to my evidence, that has not yet
302
taken place. In 1988 we had 592 inspectors and in 1989 we had 554. When will that reversal take place? Will it reach the point where we have 759 inspectors, as we had in 1980?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that point later in my speech.
The Health and Safety Executive will continue to expand its programme of preventive inspections, which are planned using a rating system based on inspectors' judgment of risks, site standards and management control and the interval since the last inspection, thus ensuring that the frequency with which particular premises are visited takes due account of the risks at those premises. Particular attention will be given to occupational health issues and management arrangements for health and safety and also to the protection of the public. Noble Lords may be assured that the HSE's inspectors will pursue complaints and take enforcement action to the highest levels in companies not measuring up to the standards expected of them.
The Health and Safety Commission and HSE will certainly be doing their best to ensure that the message of the importance of health and safety gets across to everybody. They will be building on their successful approach, demonstrated during implementation of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, of using a variety of media to get key safety messages across to small firms and other groups which are sometimes hard to reach. They will also be playing their full part in planning for success in 1992, which, I remind noble Lords, is to be European Year of Safety, Health and Hygiene.
Returning to the last point of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, perhaps it would be better both for the noble Lord and for me if I write to him on the subject.
Of course the Commission and the HSE will not be working alone but in concert with representatives of the TUC, CBI, local authorities, consumer interests, safety organisations and experts. Their aim will be to achieve lasting improvements in the United Kingdom health and safety system. The Government fully support all those involved in that task and I hope that noble Lords will endorse their efforts.
Lord Mellish: My Lord, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask him one question. He said nice things about CITB. Is the message from him and his department that the CITB has nothing to worry about for 1992?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite rightly very persistent on this matter. Again, I believe that it would be better if I write to him in due course.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who participated in an excellent and wide-ranging debate in which your Lordships drew on a wide range of expertise in this area. I should also like to thank the Minister for his speech on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box on this subject.

303
In particular I welcome his assurances that the Government are determined to reduce accident levels and that there is no room for complacency. However, in certain respects I found some of his responses a little disappointing, particularly concerning the Construction Industry Training Board and its future. On the other hand, I note that as far as the Cullen Report and the framework directives are concerned, we may, I suppose, expect to have the opportunity to look at some new legislation in this field. Certainly it is the view of those of us on this side of the House that there is room for much tougher legislation, as I think we have indicated in a number of speeches. In particular, in our view there is a case for an increase in the number of inspectors, because it seems incontrovertible that there has been a decrease in the inspectorate since the early days of the 1980s.
That being so, while I thank the Minister for his contribution to the debate, I hope that the Government will take seriously the issues we have raised this evening. I look forward to hearing more as to what the intentions are following the Cullen Report, the framework directive and the present consideration being given to the VDU directive. That will give us an opportunity to come back for a further discussion. In the meantime, having thanked everybody, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sri Lanka: Human Rights
8.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to help to end hostilities and to restore human rights in Sri Lanka.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the crisis in the Gulf has obscured events elsewhere in the world, and of those events perhaps few are so tragic as the situation in Sri Lanka. Two violent conflicts have riven the country: the JVP, or People's Freedom Party, uprising and the Sinhala-Tamil conflict. The consequences of these conflicts have been a steady increase in the level of violence, widespread abuse of human rights, including killing, torture, imprisonment without trial, a steady erosion of the democratic process and, most recently, a massive number of refugees in the wake of the war now raging in the north and east of the island.
The JVP uprising primarily affected the south of the island. It was a movement largely of the young rural poor, mostly Sinhala Buddhists, who created anarchy by widespread killing and threats and who for the moment have been put down by an equally violent government response. The number of JVP killed is not known for sure, but the figure of 30,000 is widely quoted. Many were young people whose bodies were thrown into rivers or burnt at the side of the road.
With the death of the JVP leaders little over a year ago, the south is now relatively quiet. Nevertheless, the underlying causes, especially of rural poverty, still remain and the movement smoulders and is not
304
quenched. A climate of violence has been created by that conflict and the on-going Sinhala-Tamil conflict which has begun to brutalise a formerly civilised people so that killing becomes commonplace. I had personal experience of this when I visited the island last May. I had lunch with the Tamil member of parliament for Batticaloa, Sam Tambimuttu. He talked about the danger to himself and his family from other Tamil groups and how he had brought his family to Colombo for safety. Three days later he was shot and killed outside the Canadian embassy in Colombo. The killing was attributed to a rival Tamil group. But the government in Sri Lanka is not above such actions. The killing of the journalist Richard de Soyza, which received widespread international publicity, is by many in Sri Lanka laid at the door of the government, and pressure for an inquiry into his death has still not been successful.
The situation in Sri Lanka has deteriorated massively with the resumption of civil war between government forces and the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Elam (LTTE). The Sinhala-Tamil conflict is a long-running one. For 35 years Tamils in Sri Lanka have been pressing their demands for the integrity of the Tamil homeland, substantial autonomy for the Tamil region, equal rights for the Tamil language and rights of citizenship. Successive Sinhala governments have agreed to some or all of these principles, but of whatever political complexion they consist they have not implemented them. The will to do so has been lacking.
A senior politician in Sri Lanka said to me in 1987 that weak government had been the basic cause of conflict. I have deplored the steady growth of violence, especially by the Tamils, but I have to say I understand the reasons which have driven members of the Tamil community to take that course.
With the departure of the Indian peace keeping force in March last year, an uneasy lull began which was broken in June when the LTTE recommenced hostilities. Since then, a fierce military conflict has been fought in the north and east of the island. Caught in the middle is the civilian population. The government's policy of bombing towns and villages has resulted in great numbers of families leaving their homes. Currently, the number of refugees in the island is put at about 1 million; that is, one in 15 of the population. In addition, fuel is in short supply, electricity is cut off and there has been much destruction of property, businesses, homes, schools, hospitals and churches.
Aid for the refugees has been supplied by religious and non-government organisations. The British Refugee Council believes that as a result of that aid the situation among the refugees, although desperate, is not disastrous. Among many responses, my own diocese has contributed many thousands of pounds of aid through the Bishop of Colombo. We have received graphic accounts of lorryloads of food and other aid being driven to the north, sometimes having to be left in a church or school because the road beyond is closed. In spite of this aid, the situation in the north

305
and east is appalling, and we have received heartfelt cries for help from those caught in the middle of the battle.
Although it was the LTTE who commenced hostilities in June, it seemed that until recently the Sri Lankan Government was intent on a military solution to the conflict. Having succeeded in the south against the JVP, they believed they could do so in the north. The LTTE have offered a ceasefire, and latest reports indicate that the government have now accepted it. In that context it is imperative to preserve the cessation of hostilities between government forces and the LTTE, to create conditions within that space in which refugees may return to their homes, and finally—this is the most important and difficult thing—to work out a political resolution of the conflict.
Given the complexities, it is extremely difficult to see what can be done from outside the island. Nevertheless, international scrutiny can affect the situation. There is evidence that the Sri Lankan Government have moderated their bombing campaign because of fear of international opinion. Churches and religious bodies have helped to bring the international gaze to bear on Sri Lanka. I was a member of the World Solidarity Forum on Sri Lanka for Justice and Peace—a shared Buddhist-Christian initiative which drew together religious figures, non-government organisations and politicians from some 20 countries. That has resulted in an increased awareness of the situation and the building of a network of links with those in Sri Lanka who are calling for a change of direction.
In those circumstances, the attitude of governments is crucial. I was in Colombo in May last year when the Prime Minister of Japan visited the island. There was intense interest in his attitude. He made it clear that Japanese aid would be dependent upon the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. The government in Sri Lanka must not be above the rule of law, and aid is one of the few sanctions that can be brought to bear on a government which sets itself above that rule.
The European countries have made a similar declaration. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government will be able to give an assurance that the Government will take a firm stance. Will the Government insist that aid is dependent upon the restoration of the rule of law and human rights? Will they refuse to give aid if they are not satisfied that such conditions are met? Such aid does not go to the refugees but to government programmes. We should have no compunction in making clear our abhorrence of events in Sri Lanka, a major responsibility for which must be laid at the door of the Sri Lankan Government.
All possible pressure should be brought to bear on the Sri Lankan Government to pursue a political solution to the Sinhala-Tamil conflict. The Australian Government support a proposal that the Commonwealth Secretariat should be invited to mediate in talks between the Government and the LTTE. Will Her Majesty's Government give the strongest possible support to such an initiative and
306
take a share in insisting that a political and not a military solution is the only one which can give a secure future to both Tamil and Sinhala in Sri Lanka?
Sri Lanka is an island of great beauty with a people of great ability, hospitality and charm. Those of us who have lived in the island and count Sinhala and Tamils among our close friends are deeply grieved at the tragedies and horrors that they have experienced and continue to experience. We yearn for an end to their sufferings. We shall ourselves do—and press others to do—whatever helps to achieve that end.
8.22 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon for asking the Question on the civil war in Sri Lanka. He speaks with great personal knowledge and breadth of vision. I endorse everything that he said. I should like to add as an aside that I cannot help but feel that in considering the problems of that tragic and beautiful island we should remember our inability to resolve the conflict much nearer home.
In Sri Lanka we see entrenched positions and attitudes, bitter hatred and a sense of the enemy group as excluded from the human community—as dispensable. Those feelings are common to such situations. Analysing the history of the conflict is useful only if the purpose is to examine the essential needs of the protagonists and use that knowledge to persuade them to move away from entrenched positions. As I understand it, the problem in Sri Lanka is that the national, now mainly Sinhalese, government want to maintain a unified state, while the Tamil minority which forms the majority in the north east of the island wants some degree of autonomy but not necessarily a separate state.
While English was the official lingua franca of the island, although perhaps all the communities had a grievance, at least it was a shared grievance. When Mrs. Bandaranaike rose to power on the promise of granting autonomy to the Tamil area and then reneged on that promise, she opened a wound that has festered ever since with differing degrees of inflammation. I believe that it was also she who changed the official language of Sri Lanka from English to Sinhala, making it much more difficult for the Tamils to participate in the national administration. That in turn fuelled the desire for separation.
It must be said that while horrific atrocities were committed by both sides in the years that followed, the national government have taken a very hard-line approach. They have come in for a great deal of criticism which I think is largely justified. I should point out that atrocities have been committed by both sides. As so often happens, one side blames the other. It is said that so and so started the conflict or that it started when such and such an incident occurred. It is futile to take that path. We must first have a cease-fire and then look at the political problems.
The Question asked by the right reverend Prelate is thoughtfully phrased. The denial of human rights is a function of the state of armed conflict. Hostilities will have to subside before we can hope to improve the

307
human rights situation. In fact the two propositions mentioned in the Question form part of a continuum: as life returns to normal, ordinary social existence will re-establish itself. It is a truism that peace and justice are inseparable. One cannot have the one without the other. If there is peace without justice conflict will arise. If there is justice but no peace, that justice will soon be swept away.
In this conflict the total number of dead and disappeared—what in Latin America are called los desparecidos—can now easily have reached 200,000. It could be more. The refugee problem is immense. Normal life has ceased in many parts of the north east. I have read articles which refer to the law of the jungle. We see only too clearly the escalating spiral of violence. The Sri Lankan Government are buying weapons from China. According to reports in major newspapers, the Tamil Tigers may be funding their arms purchases by smuggling drugs. It is a tragedy in so many ways.
But there are many good things that happen in Sri Lanka. I should like to bring in a note of normality. The Intermediate Technology Development Group does sterling work in Sri Lanka. That is the sort of work that can continue when the political and military situation has stabilised.
I urge the Government to support all initiatives toward peace in the island. I understand that an approach has been made by Norway and that certain Commonwealth countries, at the instigation of Senator Robert Hill of Australia who helped to draw up a substantial and substantive peace proposal, were to have attended a meeting of a high level appraisal group. Unfortunately owing to the situation in the Gulf that has been postponed until June. I cannot see why the postponement was necessary.
Will Her Majesty's Government urgently seek to have that meeting brought back to its original date? Other government and international business continue during the present conflict. Surely it remains important to end the bloodshed and suffering in Sri Lanka as soon as possible.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon for bringing to the notice of your Lordships tonight the plight of the war-torn country of Sri Lanka. My noble kinsman and I spent a holiday in Sri Lanka just before the problems started in the south. Perhaps it is because I spent the most enjoyable holiday that I have ever had in the beautiful country of Sri Lanka that I want to support this debate tonight. But also it is because last Sunday I met an Anglican priest from Sri Lanka who was visiting the local Anglican church. He came with his wife to visit us at our home. He gave me a copy of the report, World Forum on Sri Lanka for Justice and Peace.
I found Sri Lanka a magical place, with delightful people. There are kingfishers and brightly coloured parrots flying about. When, as a Roman Catholic, I attended mass I felt very much part of the community.
308
We were invited to the parish to see some of the social work that was organised for young people who were getting into trouble. They were taught how to grow vegetables. The girls were taught how to sew and be self-sufficient. We visited some of the village homes. The people whom we met were delightful. Many of them were very poor.
I was dismayed when I heard that such a wonderful place as Sri Lanka was being ravaged by war. With the Gulf war upon us, the very real troubles of Sri Lanka may be forgotten and passed over. I hope that that will not happen. I should like to ask the Minister whether there was going to be an Australian peace initiative and if so what has happened about it.
With our own problems in Northern Ireland, we are very well aware of how difficult these internal situations are. But because Sri Lanka is a Commonwealth country with close ties with Britain I hope that the Commonwealth will be able to help it solve this terrible situation.
Let me bring to your Lordships' notice some of the things which are happening to innocent civilian people. There are over 1 million displaced people, many of them having lost their homes. Some of them are living with relatives or friends, but many are in refugee camps. Food is very short. Sometimes it comes in only one week in three. About 30,000 people died in the early problems in the south, but now the problems are in the north and east of the country.
In the report there is an appeal from Jaffna, which is one of the problem areas. It reads:
"The present war is being waged in a country where ordinary people are everywhere helpless, the universities are silent, the politicians are confused and the best the churches would allow themselves to do is to render some humanitarian assistance. The wound continues to fester. There is greater misery compounded by revenge killings. It is a situation that calls for a committed, principled response. The alternative is a progressive disintegration of the country".
As a member of the British Red Cross Society for many years, I should like to tell your Lordships that the ICRC, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the League of the Red Cross are helping with relief services in Sri Lanka. The league, which deals with natural disaster, is helping with the refugees in the north and east. The principles of the Red Cross are basic humanitarian needs. The ICRC and the league are working together to help with these problems —problems of lack of medical supplies, food, fuel, fertilisers, money, household provisions and even cooking utensils.
The Red Cross helps with tracing lost people. With so many people dead and 100,000 Tamils having fled to Southern India, this must be a very difficult task. The Red Cross visits detainees. This is one of the valuable tasks undertaken by members of the ICRC in so many troubled parts of the world. This is why the neutrality of the Red Cross emblem is so important, and all countries which have Red Cross or Red Crescent societies have to see that their emblem is used only for the work of the Red Cross.
The Red Cross is appealing for more funds to help with this very needed work. This work in Sri Lanka must be difficult because relief has been hampered as the army puts up barricades. When the war is over

309
there will be much to do in relief and rehabilitation. One has to ask the question: why is there so much disharmony in a world which should be working for the good of each other instead of destroying and hating one another?
I end by saying that very bad monsoons are now hitting Sri Lanka. Snakes come into houses and last week 17 people died from snake bites. I hope that the Minister can give us some good news about some Commonwealth peace initiatives, which I trust will come sooner rather than later.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like others I should like to express my appreciation of the initiative taken by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon tonight. There are strong Commonwealth ties between Britain and Sri Lanka, and there is considerable respect for the proceedings of Parliament in Sri Lanka. I am quite sure that many people in that tragic island will feel indebted to the right reverend Prelate for expressing his concerns this evening about the future of their country.
The Gulf war tends to occupy all our attention at the moment, but it is interesting to note that this has its repercussions in Sri Lanka. Over 4,000 Sri Lankans were repatriated from Basra, Iraq, in November by the International Organisation for Migration. Over 47,000 have been returned to Colombo from the Gulf since Iraq invaded Kuwait, and there are reported to be a further 50,000 Sri Lankan workers remaining in Kuwait. So the Gulf war has serious repercussions for some of the poorest sections of the community who will be repatriated and for some of the families who depend on the remittances from workers in the Gulf in order to relieve their poverty.
When I returned from Sri Lanka last year I put down Questions to the Government on the subject of respect for human rights and on what their attitude was. I am happy to say that I received reassurances from the Government of their concern about this matter, and I am quite sure that the Minister will tonight repeat the assurances that were given by his predecessor.
But I want to pay a special tribute tonight to the representative of Her Majesty's Government in Colombo. I want to pay a tribute to David Gladstone, who is our High Commissioner and who has not been afraid or intimidated in standing up for human rights. David Gladstone has been threatened. One Member of Parliament in Sri Lanka, taking advantage of the privileged position of a Member of Parliament, went so far as to accuse him of drug trafficking in order to diminish the standing of Her Majesty's Government and their representative. But I am glad to say that David Gladstone has maintained his firm line publicly.
When I was there I was interested in the case of a young man who had just disappeared. I was associated with the religious Society of Friends and still am. They have a Quaker mission engaged in medical work and reconciliation in the island. When one of the workers suddenly disappeared, I went to David Gladstone to
310
ask him to make representations. The Swedish Embassy also made representations, and I stated that I would raise the matter with the Foreign Secretary on my return. Mr. Gladstone was summoned to the Foreign Office in Sri Lanka and was asked, "What is all the trouble you are making about this chap? We will make sure that he is returned". But like so many others who are caught in that conflict, he has never been seen since.
The problem about a mission of reconciliation is that you have to get the confidence of both sides of the argument. But as soon as you get the confidence of the leaders of the JVP, inevitably you are in conflict with the government and are suspect. The leader of our mission there last Christmas went to church in the morning and on returning from church this young man with his wife and two children who had been in Sri Lanka engaged in reconciliation for four years were advised by neighbours as they approached their home, "You had better not go home because there are two gunmen sitting outside". Whether they were from one political group or from the government, I do not know. But they took refuge immediately in the Swedish embassy, packed their bags and came home to this country. This is the difficulty of seeking reconciliation and I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will support this experience of the difficulties of establishing an understanding between the warring factions.
When the Indian troops withdrew in March last year there was suddenly a flash of hope. The government said to the Tamils, "All right, you can have a government up there in the north east". The Tamils in turn agreed to go legitimate, to cease civil war practices and to seek to have representation in the parliament, with a good deal of devolution in the north-east provincial council. Unfortunately, a small incident happened about that time which set the place alight again. The government army were going to carry out largely civil duties, but as a result of this incident and consequent misunderstanding 600 policemen were rounded up by the Tamils and they disappeared. There followed more violence and yet more conflict. This is an extremely complex situation in which both the Tamil Tigers and the government have responsibility.
What is wrong with the situation and how can we help to deal with it? There is a great deal wrong with Sri Lanka and it is difficult to see how we can contribute to a solution of some of the problems. In the case of the Tamils there is a very special situation, as the right reverend Prelate indicated: racial, religious and so on. The JVP's leaders have been murdered and they have, temporarily at least, been suppressed, but there is still great underlying reason for dissatisfaction. There is no doubt that there is a loss of faith in the government. There is a feeling that the government are corrupt, and there is no doubt that with the powers of patronage possessed by the government and politicians it is difficult to change the government. Too many people are on the civil service payroll. Money is frequently wasted on overmanning. There are state industries—after all the state of Sri Lanka is the

311
Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka—and there is no doubt that the nationalised industries and the intervention of government in the economy have not been helpful to economic growth and stability.
So there are a number of things which require to be changed, and perhaps the power of the World Bank, which is now negotiating to give Sri Lanka 1 billion dollars of economic assistance, can bring pressure to bear on the government on the economic front. There is no doubt that the lack of respect and lack of faith in the government so widely felt is a destabilising element in the situation. Again I was happy to note that the EC, when considering its aid budget, has imposed certain terms with regard to human rights, and it is in this area that we can bring pressure to bear.
Unfortunately, the people who may suffer from a suspension of aid may be the poorest in the community; that is the difficulty. But there is no doubt that aid and assistance from World Bank loans and so on are very important to the economy of Sri Lanka. Apart from anything else, the mere cost of this civil war is bearing heavily on the budget. Therefore economic pressure should be all the more effective. To give support in our aid programme not simply for large economic projects but for the work that is carried out by the NGOs is very important. Perhaps a good deal of our aid might be directed towards strengthening the influence of the NGOs which are courageously working in a very difficult situation.
I am happy to think that this discussion tonight will be reported in Sri Lanka and that people there who have perhaps given up hope will know that there are people in the United Kingdom Parliament who are concerned about their tragic situation and we will continue to press for respect for human rights in that island.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I should like to add just a few words in warmhearted support of the initiative of the right reverend Prelate in raising this subject this evening. Both my wife and I have a 20 year-long and very close connection with Sri Lanka and its people. Indeed my wife is there now. Had the Motion of the right reverend Prelate come on next week, I should perhaps have been able to supply some up-to-date information as to the state of affairs in the country at the present time. As it is, the information that I am able to contribute is based on a telephone conversation and on my own rather fragmentary knowledge of the present state of affairs.
I intend only briefly to summarise the two orders of problem which are facing Sri Lanka at present. The first is the problem of law and order in the country as a whole, arising mainly from the JVP revolt and its suppression by the government. There is no doubt—many speakers have drawn attention to this—that there have been acts of violence, and unjustifiable and excessive violence, on the part of the government in suppressing the revolt. That is perfectly clear; but what I do not believe is entirely appreciated in this country, and certainly it has not been reported at all
312
in the media, is the extent of the threat which the JVP movement constituted to lawful government in Sri Lanka.
The JVP was an extremely well organised, skilful and well equipped body which had the avowed object of creating chaos in the country; and it largely succeeded in its aim. Transport was completely disrupted; doctors were unable to get to hospitals; hospitals and schools were closed; the families of the forces of law and order were murdered; individual houses were attacked and their belongings looted —all this on a very well planned and organised scale. If, as unfortunately was the case, severe and heavy-handed methods of repression were used, one has to view those against the background of the threat with which the authorities had to contend.
What should we do now? I find myself very much in agreement with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. At the present time I believe we have to accept the fact that the government of President Premadasa is in control of the country and that he should be given support in so far as he continues on a course of law, order and human rights. I believe we can give valuable support in this country, as his friends. This country has a long, strong tradition of friendship with Sri Lanka, and I believe that visits by prominent people from here, whether politicians, churchmen, lawyers, representatives of NGOs or members of human rights bodies can be of very great help.
Among other things, Sri Lankans are a most law-abiding people and they are very good lawyers. A Sri Lankan has just been elected to the International Court of Justice. I believe that my continual appeal as to the necessity of observing basic principles of law and human rights will not fall on deaf ears. It is said that we should bring pressure to bear upon them and refuse any aid if they do not mend their ways. That is one way of looking at the matter. However, against that, one must bear in mind that many of the tragedies and excesses—the breaches of human rights —which are occurring there are due, as more than one noble Lord has said, to economic causes. Therefore, another way of approaching the same problem may be to give whatever help we can to alleviate economic problems and distress, making clear, of course, that we hope that progress along the path of human rights may continue, but we should not use the word "pressure" nor make the furnishing of aid conditional or dependent upon a compliance with certain standards which can only come later in the day.
The World Bank was referred to by one noble Lord. I believe that President Premadasa has succeeded in establishing a certain degree of credibility there. We should do well to support his application for aid and particularly we should do well to support any help to deal with the vast number of refugees resulting from the Gulf crisis. I need not expand upon that because the noble Lord put it extremely well and no doubt others will make the same point.
The second order of problem is the Tamil problem. I hope that the noble Lord who is replying will be able to give us the latest information about the progress of

313
the LTTE ceasefire and whether that still holds. We hope that that may be a successful prelude to ending the problem in the north, although one has also read with some disquiet of the arrival of some 200 Indian trawlers off the coast—a phenomenon which we have seen on previous occasions.
I am sure that the noble Baroness was absolutely right to underline this as a Commonwealth problem. It is one in which many Commonwealth countries have shown an interest and one where they are capable of giving support. Reference has been made to the Australian initiative and Canada and other countries of the Commonwealth have at times shown themselves willing to give their encouragement to the forces of right in Sri Lanka. I hope that the Government will join with them and that, through the new Secretary General of the Commonwealth and together with our friends there, particularly the major countries I have mentioned, we can try to help the Indian government to do what they can to diminish the problem.
Let us not forget that the Indian government have their problems in relation to this matter. Forces are supplied through the provincial government, over which central government does not have total control. Therefore, support and influence from the Commonwealth will probably be welcomed by the Indian government.
I thank the right reverend Prelate for asking this Question and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comforting information when he replies.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are greatly indebted to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon for drawing our attention to the miserable state of affairs in Sri Lanka and for trying to focus our minds on what could be done by the international community to restore the rule of law in that unhappy country. He painted a grim but nevertheless accurate picture of the state of affairs there.
Unfortunately this tragedy is self inflicted. My noble friend analysed some of the political reasons which led to the development of that state of affairs. It is very tempting to go into an analysis of those factors and to explain what is the aetiology of the state of violence and the reasons behind the emergence of the JDP as an armed opposition in Sri Lanka, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, referred. It did not come out of a political vacuum but emerged in 1971 when I first visited Sri Lanka as a representative of Amnesty International to inquire into the situation in which 14,800 people were detained by the government of Mrs. Bandaranaike without any process of law and where disappearances were already widespread and torture endemic in the establishments run by the police and security forces. Therefore, that is not a totally new phenomenon, but one that had emerged 20 years ago.
Some of the measures taken by governments in the intervening 20 years have encouraged young people to turn to violent instead of constitutional means of expressing themselves. For example, there were the actions of the government of President J.R.
314
Jayawardene from 1977 onwards when he had a five-sixths majority in Parliament. He gave himself presidential powers armed with that majority. He charged his political opponents before a special tribunal and imposed punishments on the former prime minister and minister of justice for acts which had been lawful at the time at which they were committed. He held a referendum to double the life of his parliament from six to 12 years, rushing through the referendum as being urgent in the national interest and the text was unavailable to voters.
During the campaign, he enjoyed a virtual monopoly of radio and television and the press, which was largely state owned. He imposed emergency regulations which were used to shut down the main Sinhala language opposition daily. He closed printing presses operated by critics of the government and arrested or threatened opposition leaders. There were raids and apparatus was destroyed in the headquarters of the main opposition party. Meetings were prevented or disrupted and campaign literature was seized and confiscated. That was how President J.R. Jayawardene won the infamous election of 1982. During that time I was present in Sri Lanka and I say without hesitation that the proceedings were fraudulent and unlawful.
In 1983 there was a pogrom against the Tamils in Colombo including a massacre of Tamil prisoners held in the principal jail. Not a finger was lifted by the government to stop the atrocities which clearly had political backing from somebody high up. However, those events were used as an excuse by the government to proscribe the JVP, which until that time—as I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce—had been returned to constitutional politics, as well as two other parties and some individuals, including persons who had protected Tamils at risk to their own lives.
At that point the JVP reverted to terrorism and the government embarked on a programme of counter-terrorism which has continued ever since, even after the leadership of the JVP was totally destroyed as it was last March when the leaders were captured and murdered in custody, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has already mentioned. The brutality of the security forces more than matched that of the terrorists, and those whose responsibility it was to uphold the rule of law against the rule of the bullet and bomb actively incited the criminal activities of their servants. J. R. Jayawardene exhorted the security forces to "kill, kill, kill and kill the brutes", and legislation was enacted exonerating the security forces and police for any criminal offences they might commit in the course of their duties. In the meanwhile, on the other side of the question, J. R. Jayawardene had totally ignored the Tamil United Liberation Front between 1977 and 1983, when it constituted the main opposition in Parliament. The TULF was a conventional political party, and by undermining its credibility among the Tamil people, J. R. Jayawardene made it inevitable that terrorist groups would supplant them. He did not honour his election promise of more autonomy for the district development

315
councils, but instead unleashed violence against the Tamil people and their priceless assets which included the famous library of Jaffna, which was totally destroyed.
Having lost control of the north, J. R. Jayawardene then invited the Indian peace keeping force to restore order, under the Indo-Sri Lanka accord of July 1987. But the Indians proved to be even more destructive and murderous than the Sri Lanka armed forces. The accord also handed a major propaganda weapon to the JVP, which it was not slow to exploit. When President Premadasa came to power he asked the Indians to withdraw. But by the time they complied the damage was already done.
The Premadasa election victory in 1988 was also of dubious validity, marred as it was by widespread violence and intimidation, as was the parliamentary election of 1989 at which I was present. There were dozens of political murders including those of nine opposition candidates and many officials. The turnout in both elections was sharply down, particularly in areas of traditional opposition support. At one polling station I attended in the south, in a constituency of strong SLFP support, nobody voted. At another polling station I came to there was the body of a terrorist laid across the threshold. He had just been killed by the security forces. Obviously people did not come out and vote when that kind of thing was happening and when shots could be heard throughout the whole area.
Thus, although some of the violence was indeed perpetrated by the JVP—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce said—the effect of the violence during those elections was to improve the results for the reigning government. The presidential majority was small enough to have affected the result in a material way. President Premadasa probably would not have come to power if there had been free and fair elections.
The Indians, meanwhile, had completed the militarisation of politics in the north and east, and set the scene not only for conflicts between the Sinhalese and Tamil communities, but also for the bloody struggles within the Tamil communities themselves; between Tamil and Moslem and, as has been said, between the LTTE and the government. President Premadasa naively thought that he could use the LTTE, and there was a honeymoon period after the Indian withdrawal. But the Tigers, having forced the regional super power, as they saw it, out of their territory, were not going to share power with Colombo. They inflicted heavy losses on the Sri Lanka armed forces in the north, which is now de facto under LTTE control. The response of the authorities in Colombo has been to create yet another armed group to seek out and kill suspected members of the LTTE in the south. It is very sad that President Premadasa, as a Buddhist, should ignore the Buddha's proposition that hatred is never appeased by hatred. The Tigers, on the other hand, masters of cruelty as the Tamil Times described them, have perpetrated the most revolting atrocities against Moslems in the north and
316
east. The entire moslem population of the north—10 per cent. of the total—have been driven mercilessly from their homes and hundreds massacred in the east.
According to the official figures of the Rehabilitation Ministry, reported in the newspaper Island on 22nd December there are 928,954 internal refugees. In the 60 camps in Batticaloa, eastern region, there are 222,161 people, all but a handful of them Moslems from the region. In Britain, Canada, the United States, India and Australia there are several hundred thousand more refugees, many of them highly qualified professionals whose skills are going to be desperately needed in the reconstruction of Sri Lanka's shattered economy and public services. The other minority which is overlooked too often is the community of Tamil plantation workers, who have very little in common with their remote cousins in the north and east but whose existence is harsh and whose rights as descendants of fourth or fifth generation immigrants transplanted as serf labour by the British are ignored. If there is to be a separate Tamil state in the north, they would be no more at home there than in the land of their ancestors, Tamil Nadu.
In the south generally the pattern has been one of kidnappings and disappearances. According to a report by two British MEPs who visited Sri Lanka in November 1990, together with a Belgian and a Dutch lawyer, an estimated 60,000 people—as my noble friend also mentioned—have disappeared in the south since 1987, many of them after being taken into custody by the police. Recently there have been several bizarre cases of detainees pleading with the judges not to release them on remand after bailed prisoners were picked up by masked gunmen in unmarked jeeps and subsequently disappeared.
Christopher Bigsby, writing in the Independent of 6th January, says that 120 students disappeared from Sri Lanka's universities since they reopened after a two-year closure last September. Sixteen lawyers who were also human rights activists have been murdered since 1988, and 36 fled the country after threats to their lives and those of their families. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is absolutely right. There are many distinguished lawyers in Sri Lanka. However, more and more of them are having to seek exile abroad, 24 in Britain. Those gross violations of human rights are continuing long after the government claimed to have disposed of the JVP in December 1989 when Rohana Wijeweera, the JVP leader, and the entire central committee, with the exception of one man, were unlawfully killed while in the custody of the police.
As far as I am aware, and I stand to be corrected by the Minister, there have been only two cases brought against servants of the state in regard to the crimes committed. In the first case, the torturing to death of the human rights activist lawyer, Wijedasa Liyanaaratchi, the superintendent and two police constables who arrested him were charged with murder two years ago. But they are out on bail and there is no sign of the case being concluded. Meanwhile the lawyer who acted for Liyanaaratchi's

317
family was driven out of Sri Lanka by death threats following the murder of two colleagues who acted with him on the case.
In the other case, that of the shooting of a student at the Teldeniya Central School, Kandy, one prosecution lawyer has been murdered. Five of the witnesses have also been murdered. The trial judge fled the country and has changed his name. Senior counsel for the prosecution has sought asylum in Britain. Since it became impossible for litigants to retain lawyers in human rights cases, the Bar Association agreed, after consultation with judges and the Attorney-General to act on behalf of litigants nominating one of their members to conduct each case. The two most recent asylum seekers in Britain are lawyers who were so nominated but who nevertheless received death threats that they could not ignore. No doubt the government would like to create the impression that the rule of law prevails and that everyone has access to the courts. However having created an autonomous machine for murder and intimidation they cannot easily stop it when acts that are extremely harmful to Sri Lanka's image abroad are perpetrated.
On 30th November I had the honour of chairing a meeting organised by the Campaign for Democracy and Human Rights in Sri Lanka at St. Martin-in-the-Fields. The remarkable feature of that meeting was that the 300 people who attended came from all communities, including some from the armed opposition groups. Yet they managed to reach a unanimous resolution outlining a solution to the frightful problems facing their country. They declared that the help of the United Nations was necessary to develop proposals for constitutional electoral reform and to secure the withdrawal of the huge quantities of weaponry which remain in private hands, most of it distributed by the government. Coincidentally, I understand that the civil rights movement in Sri Lanka itself has made a similar proposal.
Recently the Australians proposed that an interim UN administration should take over in Cambodia because the government and the armed opposition there were unable to agree on a peace formula which would enable the people to decide what kind of government they wanted for themselves. A surprisingly large number of states were prepared to agree a more active role for the UN which would involve even a short-term transfer of sovereignty. In Sri Lanka the problems are not the same, but perhaps there are additional reasons for envisaging such a UN role. Colombo will not be able to re-establish direct rule in the north, and if the Tigers control the electoral machinery, no other point of view will be allowed. So the only chance that the people have is if an impartial outside body comes to restore law and order and to supervise elections. Ideally, the United Nations should also help those who fled the north to return to their homes. I certainly go along with those who think that perhaps the Commonwealth Secretariat might have a similar role.
All observers of the situation in Sri Lanka agree that the huge arsenal of weapons in private hands must De recovered. Recently the government
318
themselves have said that one of the essential conditions for peace is that all who are not legally authorised to carry arms should hand them in. They might have been thinking of the Tigers, but in the south it is the death squads which are doing all the killing. It is theoretically within the government's power to disband them. Here again, I believe that outside help will be needed because the culture of violence has so deeply infected the security forces that orders to hand in unauthorised weapons would not be obeyed. Again, perhaps the Commonwealth Secretariat might be able to help reconstruct the uniformed services and weed out the killers.
Ideally, the government should also bring proceedings against officers who have committed offences and suspend others who may be strongly suspected of having committed criminal offences where there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. The problem is that over the years these officers have acted with the tacit approval and encouragement of the government. One of the highest ranking officers in the police force conspired to commit criminal offences on a very large scale in the south. As is generally known, the same officer was actually found by the Supreme Court to have violated fundamental rights in the notorious "voice of the clergy" case; yet that man was promoted by the government.
So the state owes a debt to these criminal officers and will not readily ditch them. Some people believe that if they were deprived of their weaponry and thus unable to deploy their private armies, they might be prosecuted. But here there may be scope for the donor countries to exercise some persuasion by saying that next year they want to see firm action taken, as has been said, to dismantle the death squad structures and to remove their patrons from office. At the aid meeting in Paris last November, the consortium made some general observations about human rights which have been referred to, but they need to be much more specific if results are to be achieved.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, there is a danger that, preoccupied with the war in the Gulf, we shall lose sight of the sufferings of people elsewhere in the world. The ordeal of the people of Sri Lanka has lasted for many years and there is no immediate sign of relief. This debate may help to show that we are conscious of their plight and that we long to help in reaching a solution. We are unlikely to have analysed in an hour the problems which the best minds of Sri Lanka have addressed for years, but we stand with those who combat oppression by peaceful means.
9.11 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I know that we are all very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon for having brought before the House this evening this enormously important but very troubling subject. As many previous speakers have said, what accentuates the importance of discussing this subject this evening is that most troubled areas, apart from the Gulf, are now no longer before the public eye. The right reverend Prelate asked for many assurances from the Minister. I look forward very much to hearing the answers.

319
There have been some wide-ranging speeches which have covered many different aspects of the back-ground and the historical reasons for the present conflict and described the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka at the moment. I wish to comment briefly on three reports. Their contents confirm most of the details which the right reverend Prelate and other speakers gave this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the report from Amnesty International, which, sadly, among other human rights organisations is banned in Sri Lanka. Amnesty International describes how the human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government forces reached a peak in 1989 and how in the south thousands of people disappeared or were victims of extra-judicial executions. Further, it describes how, following the reimposition of the state of emergency in June 1989, government security forces made little attempt to conceal their resort to widespread murder. It also describes how the Sri Lankan government persistently denied that they sanctioned illegal killings by the security forces, claiming that they killed only in combat. That point was clearly made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. A recent member of the Sri Lankan security forces is quoted as saying:
"rather than finding measures to reduce the violence, the Government has sought to wipe out the JVP with widespread repression".
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also noted the report made by a group of four Members of the European Parliament who visited Sri Lanka from 27th October to 4th November 1990. Their mission was to compile a report on the violation of human rights and the disappearance of Sri Lankans. They reported that various estimates received suggested that at least 60,000 people had disappeared in the south of Sri Lanka since 1987. That represents about one in every 250 of the population. While they were there they received reports of continuing disappearances. Indeed it was reported that up to 50 killings a week had been reported in the Kundi area in the past two months.
They went on to describe that many groups were now restricted in their operations. They gave the example of trade unions' which can no longer operate in the free trade zones and in many cases are intimidated if taking part in industrial action elsewhere. They concluded that, although the army and authorities deny responsibility for the killings and disappearances, the scale is such that the state cannot be absolved from responsibility. The state has either failed in its duty to maintain law and order or has condoned the activities of the security forces. The fear of economic collapse has fuelled the intimidation and the continuation of the underlying climate of violence and repression. The growth of human rights groups has shown that many people in the country are now entirely sickened by the conflict. Groups such as the Mothers for Human Rights and the Sri Lankan Freedom Party have been established to campaign against human rights abuse.
The European Parliament delegation recommended the visit of the United Nations sub-committee on
320
disappearances and human rights which had been accepted by the ministry of defence for February 1991. It also supported an investigation into disappearances by an independent body and said that it would support the resolution of the Sri Lankan Bar Council for an inquiry by an independent commission. The delegation also wished to encourage increased co-operation between the Sri Lankan government and the international Red Cross, a point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred.
The third report was made by the programme committee of the United Nations Children's Fund. It made quite clear that the conflict and the consequent switching of funds towards defence expenditure and away from social programmes was having an adverse effect on the welfare of children in Sri Lanka. That is particularly sad as Sri Lanka had achieved very encouraging progress over the previous decade. Infant mortality had declined and a very high immunisation coverage had been achieved. However, malnutrition is now a very serious problem with children. At least half the children under the age of five suffer from malnutrition. The report says that nearly 100,000 families and about 400,000 people are homeless, that the psychological effect of the conflict on the children has become very severe and that those who have been orphaned or lost a parent now number thousands. Children of pre-school age are in an even more precarious position.
Health services have now completely deteriorated and diseases which had been wiped out are now returning. There has been an increase in malaria, and polio cases have been reported among the children of refugees. The incidence of malnutrition has very much increased.
When one looks at the economic cost of the war, that is hardly surprising. It is estimated that the conflict is costing the government about 500,000 dollars a day. The war has caused widespread disruption to the Sri Lankan economy which had previously exhibited signs of recovery. Forty per cent. of the island's rice production is in the east and the harvest in August was badly disrupted. Seventy-five per cent. of the fishing industry is concentrated in the LTTE controlled northern district.
The burden on the economy is being exacerbated by the Gulf crisis, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, deprives Sri Lanka of vital revenue. Prior to the crisis there were over 100,000 Sri Lankan migrant workers in Kuwait who were annually sending home £75 million. That constituted Sri Lanka's largest source of foreign exchange revenue. Now rather than receiving that revenue the country is expending a great deal of money on reintegrating those refugees on their return from the Gulf.
The situation is very serious and, as previous speakers have asked, what can Britain do? I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about certain movements which are about to take place. I should first like to ask him whether the proposed visit of the United Nations Sub-committee on human rights to Sri Lanka in February is still scheduled to take place and, if so, whether there will be any delegates from Her

321
Majesty's Government on the committee. Secondly, can the noble Lord tell us when Her Majesty's Government will next meet representatives of the Sri Lankan government to discuss human rights abuses in that country? Thirdly, can he confirm that he will make urgent representations to the Sri Lankan government to ask them to reconsider their decision to resume military operations against the Tamil Tigers? Further, can he say whether there will be initiatives to secure an effective ceasefire which can be independently monitored between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers? I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have sold military equipment or dual-purpose equipment, such as computers, to the Sri Lankan government. I believe that it is most important to know what kind of military equipment is entering the country at this time and whether we are training any members of the Sri Lankan army or security forces.
Most previous speakers talked about aid. I very much agree that if we were to cut off aid to the people of Sri Lanka it would be the poorer people who would suffer the most. Therefore, can the noble Lord say what is the figure of gross British bilateral aid for 1990–91 and whether we are to maintain it? Can he also say whether the World Bank has warned that in future its aid will depend upon improvements in the Sri Lankan human rights record? I believe that the World Bank aid group has agreed on an amount of money, but I should like to know whether it has attached conditions such as that there must be improvements in the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.
I very much hope to hear some news or some form of assurance from the Minister. This is clearly a most heart-breaking situation where, as usual, it is the civilian population who are caught in the crossfire; indeed, the Sri Lankan people are suffering the most.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and those of other speakers. The right reverend Prelate knows Sri Lanka well. He has lived and worked there for several years. It was plain from his speech that he feels a real affection for the country and the people. Affection for that beautiful country also shone through the speeches of other speakers—notably those of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. It is just such an affection that has long characterised relations between innumerable people in this country and Sri Lanka. We in Britain have therefore felt a particular concern for the pain and suffering that Sri Lankans have experienced in recent years.
The political situation in Sri Lanka is indeed tragic. The quantity of blood shed during the past seven years has been appalling. Great harm has been done to a society which would otherwise be peace loving, humane and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, reminded us, law abiding, by two ruthless terrorist uprisings and a government response to them which has often paid little heed to the sanctity of basic human rights and the rule of law. I well
322
understand the concern of many people in Britain who have friends or relatives in Sri Lanka, or who merely feel deeply affected by what they have heard of the situation there. The extent of that concern is well known to the officials and my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who have received a great many letters about Sri Lanka from Members of another place and your Lordships' House, and others in this country.
I do not propose to take up the time of the House by speaking at length on the history of the violence in Sri Lanka. Most of it will be well known to those who have followed events there over the years. I should, however, like to set out the Government's view of the present situation.
We support the government of President Premadasa in its efforts to defeat the terrorist threat from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (the LTTE) in the north and east of the country. Similarly, we recognised the Sri Lankan Government's need to defeat the Sinhalese nationalist terrorists of the JVP in the centre and south of the island. We are not sorry that the JVP appears to have been defeated. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, so eloquently explained, it was an extremely dangerous threat to Sri Lankan society. No democratic government can allow itself to be dictated to by threats of violence. On the other hand, we have also consistently condemned some of the means used in confronting those threats, especially the violation of basic human rights which has occurred all too often.
The right reverend Prelate asks what action we propose to take to help to end the hostilities in Sri Lanka. I wish that there was something that we could do to achieve that end. The sad truth is that in order for peace to break out, both sides must want to stop fighting. Regrettably, that does not appear to be the case at present.
We regret the fact that the Australian-inspired Commonwealth initiative, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has not yet been followed up. The main responsibility for reinstating that initiative at present lies with the Sri Lankan Government. But should circumstances change, I can assure noble Lords that we shall be ready to help where we can, either directly or by encouraging other parties acceptable to both sides in Sri Lanka to offer their services.
In June last year, the LTTE abruptly broke off talks with the government which were aimed at resolving their grievances peacefully. At that time the differences between the two sides seemed small. The government had made considerable efforts to seek a peaceful settlement with the LTTE. However the LTTE abandoned the talks and resumed fighting, rejecting two ceasefire proposals put forward by President Premadasa.
At the beginning of this month the LTTE itself initiated a unilateral ceasefire. The Sri Lankan Government responded by itself calling a ceasefire; but after 10 days in which 34 violations were attributed to the LTTE, the government decided that it had no choice but to resume the fighting. We much regret that the ceasefire did not prove to be longer

323
lived. We shall continue to urge the Sri Lankan Government to take whatever opportunities present themselves for putting an end to the bloodshed.
The right reverened Prelate has also asked what action we propose to take to restore human rights in Sir Lanka. We are of course deeply concerned about the reports of widespread violation of human rights by members of Sri Lanka's security forces. It is distressingly clear that far too many of those whose task it is to fight terrorism have in the past themselves adopted the behaviour of the terrorist.
We have made our anxieties clear on many occasions to the Sri Lanka Government both bilaterally and with our partners in the European Community. I should like to give some examples. In October, European Community Heads of Mission in Colombo jointly urged the Sri Lankan Government to observe internationally accepted human rights obligations. In the same month we and our EC partners made it clear at the Sri Lankan Aid Consortium Meeting that future decisions on aid to Sri Lanka will take into account its human rights record. A decision will be made shortly on whether to go ahead with £3 million of British bilateral aid to Sri Lanka next financial year. Sir Lanka's human rights performance will certainly be one of the major factors which we will take into account. I think that that deals with one of the right reverend Prelate's concerns.
On 3rd December our High Commissioner in Colombo met President Premadasa, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed developments with the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London on 19th December. On both occasions our views on human rights violations by the security forces in Sri Lanka were very clearly expressed. My honourable friend told the Sri Lankan High Commissioner that we see only one way in which his government and its security forces can regain the confidence of the population of Sri Lanka and of the international community. The whole government, particularly those ministers and officials who are directly responsible for the security forces, must make public their determination to use lawful means in the fight against their enemies. To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in addition it must be clearly demonstrated that individual members of the security forces who indulge in unacceptable behaviour will as a matter of government policy be brought to justice.
There is some evidence that all this pressure is bearing fruit. In mid-November the Sri Lankan government appointed its own special task force to investigate human rights questions and report direct to President Premadasa. Just last week President Premadasa announced the creation of a commission of inquiry to examine individual complaints of disappearances. We see the appointment of these bodies as steps in the right direction and are encouraging the Sri Lankan government to do all it can to allow them to work effectively. We shall be watching closely to see just how effective they are.
324
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, raised the matter of help for Sri Lankans stranded in the Gulf. We responded quickly with a contribution to the cost of repatriating refugees from the Gulf, including many Sri Lankans. This contribution, including Britain's share of European Community assistance, now amounts to £11 million. The noble Lord also referred to the NGOs and their activities. We have provided over £440,000 in the past 12 months to support emergency relief work by NGOs in the north and east of Sri Lanka. We also support the NGOs, including the Intermediate Technology development group which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, in other activities in Sri Lanka.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, paid tribute to the British High Commissioner in Colombo. I am sure that the House would agree with the noble Lord in the kind and fitting tribute to the work done by our High Commissioner, David Gladstone, in Colombo in circumstances which are often not easy. I can assure the noble Lord that his words will be much appreciated.
At the end of her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, fired off a battery of questions. I shall do my best to answer a few of them. She asked about arms sales: all arms export licence applications are carefully scrutinised, case by case, taking all factors, including human rights, into account. Sri Lanka is not a major market for British defence equipment.
As concerns military training, we provide some military training for members of the security forces. We do not undertake training in cases where we believe that those trained might subsequently be involved in what we would regard as unacceptable practices. Our training is designed to instil the discipline and high professional and ethical standards of our own forces. There are no British military personnel involved in training in Sri Lanka.
The noble Baroness also asked me about United Kingdom representation on the UNCHR working group. The composition of the group is not yet decided. She also asked me what contacts Britain would have with the government of Sri Lanka in the near future. My honourable friend the Minister of State hopes to visit Sri Lanka later this year. He will no doubt raise human rights questions at that time.
The noble Baroness asked about the proposed visit of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights to Sri Lanka. A visit is proposed for September 1991. That date was suggested by the Human Rights Commission itself.
Some progress is being made, albeit not yet enough. President Premadasa and his government are very well aware of the deep concern felt in this country and in many others around the world over the situation in Sri Lanka. We continue to encourage, urge and occasionally cajole the Sri Lankan government to do its utmost to resolve the country's problems peaceably. We are prepared to offer our services wherever they may be of assistance. But in the end the problems can be solved only by a determination by Sri Lankans themselves, of all opinions and ethnic groups, to settle their differences around the negotiating table.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to inform him that I received a fax from the Red Cross today. The fax came from Geneva and it stated that the Red Cross has started an appeal for Sri Lanka. Is it possible that some of the £3 million that has been referred to could
326
be given to the International Committee of the Red Cross to help the Sri Lankan Red Cross society undertake humane relief work?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure whether that is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. I shall, however, certainly look into it.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before ten o'clock.

  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE: EFFICIENCY SCRUTINY
  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE: EFFICIENCY SCRUTINY
  FRAUD IN THE EC
  FRAUD IN THE EC
  RECYCLED PAPER
  RECYCLED PAPER
  HEROIN AND COCAINE: SEIZURE DATA
  HEROIN AND COCAINE: SEIZURE DATA
  THE GULF: DECISIONS ON MILITARY OPERATIONS
  THE GULF: DECISIONS ON MILITARY OPERATIONS
  PRISON ESCAPES AND ABSCONDS
  PRISON ESCAPES AND ABSCONDS
  PRISON OFFICERS ON ESCORT DUTY: ASSAULTS
  PRISON OFFICERS ON ESCORT DUTY: ASSAULTS
  PRISONERS: ESCAPES WHILE UNDER ESCORT
  PRISONERS: ESCAPES WHILE UNDER ESCORT
  PRISON OFFICERS: ASSAULTS BY INMATES
  PRISON OFFICERS: ASSAULTS BY INMATES
  THE BALTIC STATES
  THE BALTIC STATES
  FRESH WATERS: QUALITY MONITORING REPORT
  FRESH WATERS: QUALITY MONITORING REPORT
  PRIVATE WATER SUPPLIES: PROPOSED REGULATIONS
  PRIVATE WATER SUPPLIES: PROPOSED REGULATIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESERVISTS' PENSIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESERVISTS' PENSIONS
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT: WASTE DISPOSAL PROVISIONS
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT: WASTE DISPOSAL PROVISIONS