Sitting of 31 January 1991

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 7 February.
  Mr. Speaker: As all the Second Reading Bills have blocking motions with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL (By Order)
  CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
  HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  HOOK ISLAND (POOLE BAY) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.)BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL (By Order)
  KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)
  MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the public spending planning total for 1991–92.
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the public spending planning totals for 1991–92.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): None, Sir.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the Confederation of British Industry has been joined in its call for better training to eliminate the rigidities in our work force by the Employment Institute, the TUC and even the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Why are the Government ignoring the experts and planning real cuts in the Department of Employment budget in 1993–94?
    Mr. Mellor: The recent CBI survey showed that three quarters of those asked were intending to spend as much on training next year as this year and that 29 per cent. were proposing to increase the money spent on training. The guarantees that the Government have given to various groups on training remain exactly as they were. In setting up training and enterprise councils and investing large sums of money in them, we have broadened the range of training and ensured that it reflects all the new insights into how to make it an effective way to get people into good, productive work.
    Mr. Loyden: Is not it a fact that, in the traditions of the former Prime Minister, the present Government listen to no one? The CBI—the friends of the Government—has pointed out that rising unemployment and lack of quality training should be tackled at this stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) said, despite those warnings, the Department of Employment is cutting its budget by £1 billion in 1993–94. Is that how the Government treat the question of quality training and unemployment?
    Mr. Mellor: The Government have an unprecedented record of success in training. A wide range of training opportunities has been especially successful with young people and with the long-term unemployed, as the figures show only too clearly. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment may have an early opportunity to lay before the House his training plans and when he does so it will be seen that the Government have one of the widest-ranging training plans anywhere in the world.
    Mr. Tim Smith: As pressures mount on total public spending as a result of increased social security spending at home and the rising costs of the war in the Gulf, will my right hon. and learned Friend reaffirm the Government's

    1091
    commitment to firm control of both public spending and public borrowing as part of their counter-inflationary policy?
    Mr. Mellor: The outturn of public expenditure this year is likely to be only 1 per cent. ahead of plans, as was forecast in the autumn statement and, as is known, inflation was not accommodated in the public expenditure settlement in the autumn. So there is absolutely no doubt that, notwithstanding the obvious burdens caused by changes in the economic cycle and the cost of the Gulf, public expenditure is under firm control today and will continue to be so.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: If my right hon. and learned Friend were to signal higher public spending, would not the discipline of his fiscal policy be questioned and might not sterling suffer? Would not the CBI do better to advocate radical changes to the habit of granting automatic annual pay increases, if it wishes to encourage profitability and more industrial investment?
    Mr. Mellor: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question, but in fairness to the CBI it is worth reporting that, in its memorandum on the economic priorities for 1991, it made it clear that tight control of public expenditure is vital. So it has no disagreement with us about that.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Chief Secretary comment on recent reports of an average cut of some 12·5 per cent. in cash terms in the planning total for programmes for training the unemployed this year, just when the numbers are rising? Is not it at best short-sighted and at worst grossly neglectful of the national interest to cut training —and support for industry—at a time of recession?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady is simply asking me to reiterate points that I made earlier—which, of course, I am only too happy to do, unless the hon. Lady is overruled by the shadow Chancellor, who has already grasped the facts.
    The CBI survey shows that there is considerable enthusiasm for enhanced training in British industry, which it is itself funding. As I said, the range of training that we provide is as sophisticated and wide ranging as can be found anywhere in the world, and the new TECs initiative has been widely welcomed everywhere except on the Opposition Front Bench.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of income tax receipts came from the top 10 per cent. of earners in 1979, 1981 and 1990.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): The top 10 per cent. of taxpayers paid about 35 per cent. of the total yield of income tax in 1978–79 and 1981–82. That rose to 42 per cent. in 1990–91.
    Mr. Bowis: Does not my hon. Friend's answer show that, as the Government's policy of reducing tax rates continues, those who can afford the most will bear the biggest share of the tax burden? Does not it also show that, as tax rates come down, tax revenue goes up, enabling us to afford to care for those in need, pay for better-quality services and cover eventualities and emergencies such as the Gulf war?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend puts the point very well. It is disturbing to find that—in the face of both the strong theoretical case that lower tax rates increase the yield of tax and the practical experience that demonstrates it conclusively—the Labour party still clings remorselessly to the old, faded dogmas of the past. Even as my hon. Friend asked his supplementary question, Labour voices could be heard saying, "There could be more: we could be raising more." I can tell the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that the one way to ensure that more money is not raised from the better off is to increase the high levels of tax levied on them.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister admit that, in the first 10 years of this Tory Government, the wealthiest 1 per cent. in Britain have received £26·2 billion in tax cuts, while the poor have been taxed to the hilt? Does not the Minister appreciate that that money should have been spent on hospitals, homes, education, pensions and on getting rid of cardboard city?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman simply has not been listening: if he had, he would have heard that the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers—those who are best off in society—have paid more and more in tax. They have also been allowed to keep more and I do not think that there is anything deplorable about that. The only argument for increasing tax rates for the better-off is based wholly on spite and envy; it is certainly not based on the desirability of increasing the yield to the Government.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister admit that the increase in Treasury revenue might have something to do with the fact that the rich—for example, the chief executives of our companies and industries—may just have been paying themselves more? For the past few years, they have been paying themselves 30 per cent. more each year, while the overwhelming majority in the country have received wage increases of less than 10 per cent.
    Mr. Maude: Again we hear the old, faded voices calling for a return to the politics of spite and envy. British industry and British business are now vastly more successful, and have created much more wealth for everyone in society, than was the case before; if managers and executives have played an important part in that, I see nothing wrong with rewarding them.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product manufacturing investment, including leased assets, represented in 1979; and what it represented in 1989.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The figures are 3·6 per cent. in 1979 and 2·8 per cent. in 1989, but this has to be seen against the background of the absolute level of manufacturing investment reaching an all-time high in real terms in the first quarter of 1990.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister acknowledge that this is a worrying trend, despite the rider to her answer? Does she suggest that British industry will be able to cope when we come out of this appalling recession? If it is unable to cope, what is the balance of payments likely to be?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is misleading to concentrate on just one sector, such as manufacturing. In advanced industrial economies all sectors of business are interdependent. The point is that the quality of investment is much better now than it was in the 1970s, when investment decisions were distorted by negative real interest rates and public sector subsidies. That improvement is demonstrated by the fact that profitability is now much higher than it was in the 1970s.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that many businesses in Yorkshire are anxiously looking for a reduction in interest rates? Is she also aware, however, that many manufacturing industries are so confident about the future that they are investing millions of pounds in new factories to prevent more imports from being sucked into this country?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to hear that good news about Yorkshire. My hon. Friend well understands that the real threat to manufacturing is inflation and the important point is that interest rates are on course to reduce inflation.
    Mr. John Smith: Is not it appalling that, as the economy plunges deeper into recession, the Confederation of British Industry predicts a 16 per cent. fall in investment by manufacturing companies? Why is it that Britain is the only country in the European Community that is suffering from such a disastrous fall in investment in its manufacturing sector? What do the Government intend to do about it?
    Mrs. Shephard: The CBI forecast predicts a much sharper fall than do most other forecasts. A number of firms expect investment to drop markedly in 1991. That is to be expected after the record investment levels that were reached in early 1990. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also have noticed from the 3i survey that 80 per cent. of the largest United Kingdom businesses think that business now is much better able to cope.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Labour Government went out in 1979 so did Red Robbo, the Cowley mole and ancient and obsolete trade union practices? During the past 10 years there has been massive investment in the British motor industry by Nissan, Toyota and Honda, among others, leading to new factories, new plant and massive investment—a long-lasting testament to this Government's performance.
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is always an excellent advocate for the car industry. I am glad to be able to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the fourth quarter of 1990 the volume of car exports increased by 37 per cent. compared with the previous year. The figures strikingly illustrate the strong improvement in the performance of the British car industry.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Caborn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission to discuss child benefit.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission in the near future.
    Mr. Caborn: The Conservative party declares that it is the party of the family. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer discuss child benefit with the Equal Opportunities Commission? Child benefit is one of the best fiscal ways to help families. Will the Government also discuss restoring the level of child benefit, in April 1991, to the operational level of April 1987? Will the Minister repudiate the Policy Studies Institute argument that child benefit should be removed from children over the age of five? May we have a Government commitment that the suggestion will not be considered by the Treasury?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to make any comment that might predict the content of the Budget. However, the Government have a two-pronged approach to help families with children through the social security system. There is child benefit, which will be costing £5 billion a year with effect from April with the extra £1 for the eldest child in each family, and special help targeted on poorer families which, at the moment, is £400 million a year extra in real terms and has been so since 1988. The real help for families with children has come from the strong growth in earnings that those families have seen under this Government.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is said to be under some pressure to restore child tax allowance, presumably in lieu of child benefit, will my hon. Friend remind him that we had the abolition of child tax allowance and transfer to child benefit some years ago because child benefit was thought to be the most effective way of bringing assistance to the maximum number of parents? Will she remind my right hon. Friend, if he is tempted to restore child tax allowance, that although it would no doubt benefit taxpayers, only the maintenance of child benefit and—one hopes—its restoration to its true level will continue to affect all families and all children within them?
    Mrs. Shephard: Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), my hon. Friend is dangerously close to trying to get me to make some sort of Budget predictions. Perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security when he said to the House that child benefit is and will remain an important element in the Government's support for the family.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Government give careful consideration to the very real difficulties and problems created for families with young people beyond the age of 19 who are in full-time education? Will the Government reconsider the possibility of restoring child benefit to the end of the academic year in which the child reaches the age of 19 so that the hardship might be relieved?
    Mrs. Shephard: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

    Savings
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates for the savings ratio.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): The latest figures show that the personal sector saving ratio was nearly 9 per cent. in the third quarter of 1990.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent news about savings going up. Does he agree that probably the best way to reduce inflationary pressures and interest rates is to encourage further spending—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—further savings? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's new TESSA scheme is probably the best form of saving and probably the best way of encouraging saving in the nation?
    Mr. Lamont: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was announcing a novel fiscal principle, but I agree with his revised remarks. A high level of savings is extremely important for countering inflation. Of course, interest rates play an enormous part in balancing savings and investment. As my hon. Friend said, we have introduced a number of measures, including personal equity plans and TESSAs, which have been extremely popular and TESSAs have got off to an excellent start. I note what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot anticipate any further measures that might be in the Budget. I should tell the House that, as forecast in the press, the Budget will be on 19 March.
    Mrs. Wise: As it is impossible for anyone to save without an income, what is the Chancellor's message to the 5,000 or so shop workers employed by Lewis's department stores who went to work this morning to find the doors closed for trading until further notice with no guarantee of wages after today?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this about savings?
    Mrs. Wise: It is about savings and what comes before saving—eating. What will those shop workers hear from the Government about the state of the economy? What is the Chancellor's message to them?
    Mr. Lamont: We have made it clear that we expect unemployment to rise this year, but it remains a fact that Britain has experienced fast growth in employment and that unemployment here is still much lower than the European average.
    Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of fighting inflation is to encourage people to save and that through TESSAs, PEPs and other measures the Treasury has encouraged that development? Will he continue to pursue that policy in the forthcoming Budget to help to press down inflation?
    Mr. Lamont: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), I note my hon. Friend's comments, which I assume are early Budget representations.
    Ms. Abbott: We listened with much interest to what the Chancellor said about the savings ratio. In giving evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, Sir Jack Hibbert, director of the Central Statistical Office, said that the savings ratio is subject to quite a wide margin of error and that small differences from quarter to quarter should not be regarded as significant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that savings are an important indicator of the economy? If he
    1096
    wants evidence of the Government's disastrous stewardship of the economy, he should consider the statistics on savings as a percentage of gross domestic product in the past 10 years which have halved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It would help if the hon. Lady did not look at that bit of paper.
    Ms. Abbott: Savings as a proportion of gross domestic product have halved in the past 10 years from 8·2 per cent. under the previous Labour Government to 4·6 per cent. in 1989.
    Mr. Lamont: On the hon. Lady's point about the margin of what is statistically significant, the rate has increased from 51/4 per cent. to 9 per cent. in the third quarter of 1990 which is well outside what might be called the margin of error. She made a serious point—that for a long time Britain has been a low-savings country. One reason is that many people borrow to purchase houses. None the less, as my hon. Friends have said, the quite sharp rise in the savings ratio in the recent past has been extremely welcome.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he can give of the amount of corporation tax he will collect from private companies in the current tax year.
    Mr. Maude: Corporation tax was estimated in the autumn statement to yield £21·2 billion in 1990–91. I am afraid that information on the yield from private companies is not available.
    Mr. Gill: In framing his Budget proposals, will my hon. Friend take into account the desirable and beneficial effect on the economy of allowing successful companies to retain more of their earnings, which would inevitably be spent on research and development, training and more capital investment? Will he further bear it in mind that the ploughed-back profits of private companies are inevitably their only source of capital?
    Mr. Maude: Our rates of corporation tax are already exceptionally low, which is helpful to the corporate sector. Our regime for small companies is the most generous in the industrialised world. My hon. Friend will have been encouraged by the survey published by the CBI this week, which shows that a majority of companies expect to maintain or increase expenditure on training and to maintain expenditure on research and development. That is particularly encouraging because in the downturn of the early 1980s those two items were the first to be cut.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was at least partly right. Companies that intend to use their money for investment should be given some incentive. Should not that incentive be a change in the capital allowances? This is a period in which there will be some disinvestment. It falls to the Chancellor to ensure that at such a critical time, investment is maintained as far as possible. The 25 per cent. capital allowances level is nonsense.
    Mr. Maude: All the evidence suggests that the 25 per cent. capital writedown reflects the real depreciation in the

    1097
    value of investment. If anything, it is more generous than the economic assessment of the depreciation. The Opposition have maintained for a long time—and I agree with this—that spending on research and development, and on training is an investment as well, so we should seek to maintain spending there. I am less gloomy than the right hon. Gentleman seems to be and I draw great comfort from the indications in the Confederation of British Industry survey.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend examine the amount raised by corporation tax over the past few years and will he reflect that the vastly increased amounts raised are a result of the successful way in which the Government have run their economic policies and of the great expansion of British industry? Nevertheless, in framing his Budget, will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the successes of the past are now resulting in considerable corporation tax having to be paid at a time of cash flow difficulties and the fact that too much tax paid to the Government will have an effect on investment? Perhaps my hon. Friend and his colleagues will consider reducing the rate of corporation tax for private companies in the forthcoming Budget.
    Mr. Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He would not, of course, expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the very desirable increased profitability of the corporate sector in recent years, which is a reflection of the considerable success of the Government's economic policies.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister's own Department estimates that some £5 billion of tax, including corporation tax, remained uncollected last year. What plans does the Minister have to collect that tax? What proportion of it is corporation tax? What is the Minister going to do to block tax-planning devices, such as those that the Conservative Government introduced in the Finance Act 1981, because the burdens fall on the rest of our citizens?
    Mr. Maude: The short point is that the best way to prevent tax avoidance is to have a tax system that is simple and straightforward and has low rates. We have pursued that policy and, especially with corporation tax, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it has resulted in a substantial increase in yield. We are keen at every stage to ensure that loopholes are blocked and that avoidance is prevented. We shall continue to pursue those aims.
    Mr. John Townend: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the small business sector, cash flow is becoming very difficult? Will he, therefore, when framing his Budget, consider making the first £1,000 of taxable profit in unincorporated businesses and in businesses paying the small business rate exempt from corporation tax, to help their cash flow?
    Mr. Maude: I have taken careful note of my hon. Friend's suggestion and I shall study it with great diligence.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current short-term interest rates in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) West Germany.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: At close yesterday, three-month interbank market rates were 13·9 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 9·2 per cent. in Germany. However, today the Bundesbank has raised its official discount and Lombard rates by a further ½ per cent.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Chancellor agree that any neutral observer hearing those figures for the first time would assume that Germany was the country with oil? After 12 oil-rich years and with sky-high interest rates, sky-high mortgage arrears, sky-high repossessions and sky-high bankruptcies is not it time that the Government broke the habit of the past 12 long years and apologised to the electorate?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman might also have referred to the fact that in the 1980s, the British economy grew faster than the Germany economy. He seemed to leave that out of his comparison between this country and Germany. I appreciate that interest rates are high and that that is causing great difficulties for many businesses. However, the discomfort for the business sector is inevitable if we are to get on top of inflation. Inflation, especially for businesses in the international market which compete against German businesses, matters too. Businesses will not be able to compete against Germany unless we get inflation down to levels far closer to Germany's.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: In view of today's raising of the discount rate by the Bundesbank, can we politely make representations to the Bundesbank and the German Government, as I assume we already have, explaining that, while we fully appreciate the great burden on them posed by the economic refurbishment of eastern Germany, we very much hope that they will seek to deal with this by fiscal rather than monetary methods? If they continue to raise their interest rates it will cause considerable problems for partners of theirs in the exchange rate mechanism and, indeed, possibly have an adverse effect on both American and Japanese interest rates as well.
    Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend would expect, we have discussed the question of the German deficit and the financial consequences of the unification of Germany both at the G7 meeting and at the recent meeting of EC Finance Ministers. The Germans have made it very clear that they understand our concerns and, most important, that they intend to limit their budget deficit and to make the expenditure and tax adjustments necessary so to do.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Chancellor agree that if it were widely believed that the Government were on course to defeat inflation the pound would not be so low in its exchange rate bands and the Chancellor would find it much easier to narrow the gap with regard to German interest rates? Are not our present penally high interest rates a premium for the Government's past mistakes?
    Mr. Lamont: Exchange rate markets—although I may be overstating the hon. Gentleman's influence—are also influenced by endless calls for premature cuts in interest rates. No, I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, I think that it is very clear from looking at outside forecasts that people expect us to reach our inflation target and many independent forecasters think that we may do rather better.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the determination by the British Government to hold to the central rate within the ERM will increase the confidence of the holders of sterling in continuing to hold sterling and therefore allow a lower rate of premium for sterling interest rates against those of the deutschmark? Is not this the most virtuous way of ensuring that our rates will fall as inflation falls?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all knew what the consequences would be when we chose to join the exchange rate mechanism and I assume that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who urged us to join were also aware of the consequences. Our overwhelming priority must be to stick within the bands of the ERM, but it is true that, as the underlying rate of inflation is seen to come down, so the scope for interest rate reductions may become wider.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Chancellor accept that, even with this morning's announcement from Germany, our interest rates are still very substantially above those elsewhere in Europe? Will the Government finally wake up to the fact that their policy of exclusive reliance on high interest rates for demand management has succeeded in plunging this country into recession, starving industry of investment funds and ensuring that our economic performance has been far worse than Germany's?
    Mr. Lamont: I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can say that our economic performance has been worse than that of Germany when our growth rate, our manufacturing output performance and our manufacturing investment in the recent past have all grown faster than those of Germany. As regards the hon. Gentleman's last point, I do not understand why he persists in saying that we rely only on interest rates when we have one of the tightest fiscal positions of any of the G7 countries. As regards the hon. Gentleman's first point, our interest rates are higher than those of Germany because our inflation rate is higher. Our real rates of interest, which measure the real burden on industry, are not higher than those of France, Germany or, indeed, Italy.

    Manufacturing Productivity
    Mr. Wells: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much manufacturing productivity has increased between 1979 and 1989.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Manufacturing productivity increased by 50 per cent. between 1979 and 1989, more than in any other major industrial country over the period in question.
    Mr. Wells: Does my hon. Friend agree that that performance shows the success of the Conservative Government's economic policies? Will not we need more and a longer period of such Conservative Government policies now that we have joined the European exchange rate mechanism, because manufacturers can no longer take refuge in a devaluation of our exchange rate and must increase their productivity still further?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Manufacturing output, employment and the number of firms reached record levels in 1990. Membership of the ERM is an additional discipline.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is not it the case that our manufacturing production will go down if ICI leads the fertiliser business? That is likely simply because of dogma. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has blocked Kemira, a state-owned company, from taking over the fertiliser business owned by ICI. Is not that a disgrace when we remember that, in my constituency of Edinburgh, Leith and south of the border, many people are likely to lose their jobs? What does the Minister intend to do about that, remembering that a fight-back will take place and that a general election is just around the corner?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter which, as he recognises, is more properly for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I make the general point that an increase in unemployment depends crucially on how companies and labour forces split an essential reduction in unit labour costs between pay settlements, lower investment and fewer jobs.
    Mr. Favell: As it is clear that the social charter would have an adverse effect on manufacturing productivity, may I have my hon. Friend's cast-iron assurance that the Government will not give in to Commissioner Papandreou and agree to the social charter?
    Mrs. Shephard: The Government will continue to pursue the prudent and sensible economic policies that have brought so much success over the past decade.
    Mr. Boateng: Given the current state of the Government's economic policies and their perverse and asinine equation of working with hurting, how many people have to be flung out of work before Ministers go to the Dispatch Box to tell us that their economic policies are working—2 million or 2·5 million? Have they any idea?
    Mrs. Shephard: The real threat to employment and to economic success is inflation. I repeat my point that the increase in unemployment will depend crucially on the way in which management and labour forces deal with wage settlements. We do not need any lectures from the Opposition when we remember that manufacturing output under Labour fell by 2½ per cent.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Did my hon. Friend notice that, in 1979, Scotland's premier exporting industry, the Scotch whisky industry was in recession? It was overstocked and underproducing, while distilleries and bottling and blending plants were closing. Today Scotch whisky exports are at an all-time high and that is the direct result of the Government's policies.
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scotch whisky industry has had remarkable success. It now exports 85 per cent. of what it produces. That is in large measure due to its own efforts and the Government's successful policies and support.

    Income Tax
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on Government revenues of a 1p cut in the basic rate of tax.
    Mr. Maude: About £2 billion in a full year.
    Dr. Godman: I know that the Chancellor is a bit of a chancer, but may I urge him to resist taking the main

    1101
    chance offered by such a tax cut? Will he instead provide more expenditure for the training of our actual and potential work force? Would not such expenditure enable many unemployed people to aspire to skills and knowledge that would put them in a better position in the labour market?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman makes his Budget representations in a somewhat delphic way. In response to his point about spending money on training, I mentioned earlier, and repeat for his benefit, that the CBI survey indicates that the amount of money spent by private companies on training is likely to be increased or maintained this year. The majority of companies are expecting to increase the amount that they spend on training. That is good news. We have already a massive programme of training in Britain, which is very much to be welcomed.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend resist this year the urge to raise taxes, particularly on savings? Would not the Opposition's suggestion of reintroducing the investment income surcharge discourage savings? Does not that show how little the Opposition's underlying attitudes have changed, whatever their glossy image is?
    Mr. Maude: The idea propounded by the Labour party that one should at the same time encourage savings and tax them more heavily is one which I have not yet managed to understand.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Patchett: Has the Prime Minister seen reports this morning that the Italian cargo vessel the Karin B is returning to Britain with a cargo of toxic waste? In view of the grave public anxiety on the matter, will he ensure that under no circumstances will the ship be allowed into any British port with its deadly cargo?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that waste will be allowed into this country only if it is safe to treat it. We shall certainly apply that principle to the Karin B and its cargo.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that in the nuclear weapons age the much pilloried phrase, "Careless talk costs lives" is a dramatic understatement? Does he further agree that the intolerable position in which Admiral Sir Tom Woodward was put in a public discussion on television early yesterday morning by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was a serious threat, especially as the right hon. Gentleman asked that the relationship between the President of the United States and British use of nuclear weapons be brought out into the open? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows the importance of the existing convention which applies to the matter?
    The Prime Minister: It is an important convention. However, I did not see the interview and I should prefer not to comment too directly upon it.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that Admiral Woodward was a great deal more candid than Ministers have been about the use of nuclear weapons in the Gulf? Is he also aware that there is widespread anxiety in Britain about the extension of the war aims well beyond the United Nations objectives relating to Kuwait and about the possibility of an extension of the war? Will he welcome the initiative of the French Government in going to Tehran to see whether at this late stage some progress might be made by negotiation leading to a ceasefire?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that I did not see the interview with Admiral Woodward and I have no comment on it. On the war aims, I have made it clear consistently that our aims are those set out in the United Nations Security Council resolutions. That is and remains the position.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the somewhat fragile political climate in South Africa, following the welcome meeting of reconciliation between Chief Buthelezi and Mr. Nelson Mandela? What action can the Government take to encourage the nations of the world to take a more positive attitude towards South Africa to encourage that country faster and further down the road to reform which we all want to see it travel?
    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome the meeting between Chief Buthelezi and Mr. Mandela. It is an extremely welcome development. As my hon. Friend will know, the European Community nations lifted the investment sanction some time ago because of the progress that has been made. If, as I hope, further progress on dismantling apartheid is made soon, I hope that we shall see a further gesture from the European Community, the United States and the Commonwealth on lifting sanctions.
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir David Steel: After the Gulf war, bearing in mind what was done after the Falklands war, will the Prime Minister consider setting up a high-level inquiry into the acquisition by Iraq of British arms and technology, including some from private companies, quangos and Government Departments, so that lessons may be learned, and so that never again will our forces be faced with an enemy armed partly by ourselves?
    The Prime Minister: There is a considerable degree of sensitivity about the supply of arms and equipment. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, for some considerable time we have not supplied arms to Iraq for precisely that reason. We will take great care in future to ensure that we are careful about that matter.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of loyalty and service to NATO of the republic of Turkey in the last 45 years, and also to the United Nations in Korea and to United Nations endeavours in the Gulf, is worthy of great praise and should be considered carefully by other NATO members and members of the European Community?
    The Prime Minister: Turkey certainly has a distinguished record in NATO, and I am happy to acknowledge that fact.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to confirm that any interest rate rise in Britain in response to today's rise in German interest rates would be disastrous for industry?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we will set interest rates and reduce interest rates when we think it is appropriate. As he knows, we have made our position on the subject perfectly clear. When it is appropriate and in the interests of the economy to reduce interest rates, and when we see that the reduction will be sustained, we will take action.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Government have been telling us for years that they have been curing inflation. Is not it the case that they have always made the mistake of combating inflation only with high interest rates, with the result that they have hit investment? How does the Prime Minister expect the country to become more competitive in advance of the completion of the single market if all the time he is wearing down investment, skills, training and the other things that are essential to enable Britain to compete?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should know that as our inflation differential with the European Community narrows, we will be in a position to reduce interest rates. The right hon. Gentleman, who invariably advocates the cutting of interest rates, may recall that he also advocated a further cut in interest rates in 1987. Had we then followed his advice, we would have faced a far greater problem today.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister will have great difficulty in saying to anyone that he could have greater difficulties than those caused by 1,000 redundancies a day, a reduction in output, a reduction in investment and the highest interest rates in the developed world.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about Britain's success in the 1990s, he needs to bear it in mind that we must get inflation down to the rate of our competitors. We are prepared to take action to do so. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman, as ever, wants the soft option.
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contribution made by Germany yesterday to Britain's war expenses is extremely welcome? Can he indicate to the House whether he expects contributions from any other source?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the further contribution of £275 million from Germany is very welcome. So also is the offer to provide some military material. I spoke to Chancellor Kohl this morning and was able to thank him for the generosity of the German people.
    Mrs. Heal: Following the visit yesterday by hon. Members, all of whom happened to be women, to the wives of the service men serving in the Gulf, will the Prime
    1104
    Minister take the opportunity to write a letter of support to the wives, many of whom feel isolated and lonely? Will he agree to do that? Will he also agree to a delegation of the wives coming to Westminster to explain to hon. Members their difficulties and feelings while they are supporting their husbands who are serving in the Gulf?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady about the remarkable contribution made by the wives of our service men. I hope shortly to have the opportunity of visiting a number of the wives in Germany and I look forward to that. I would be happy to send the letter that the hon. Lady suggests.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be few worse examples of the inhumanity of Saddam Hussein than his cruelty to the prisoners of war and their families in refusing the International Red Cross access to them? Will he do everthing in his power to ensure that that access is achieved?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that we are certainly doing that. The action by the Iraqis in refusing access is intolerable and unforgivable. We are in daily touch with the Red Cross in Geneva and are doing our best to support its efforts. I shall be meeting the president of the Red Cross early next week.
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister share my view that it is obscene that the lives of coalition forces in the Gulf are threatened by arms and weapons probably made by their own families in their own country? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an unequivocal assurance today that he will take Britain out of the international arms trade, which includes the training of personnel from other countries and providing technical know-how?
    The Prime Minister: The obscenity lies in Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, and the sooner that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the better.
    Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an act of naked aggression, but Israel's occupation of the west bank and Gaza was brought about by decades of Arab intolerance of the state of Israel and that, because of those two different scenarios, there should be no linkage at any future date?
    The Prime Minister: It is clear that the situation is different because in 1967 it was Israel which was attacked. But we now have to look to the future and a solution to the Arab-Israel problem based on territory for peace. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait has made that task much

    1105
    more difficult, but as I have said to the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks, we shall certainly be looking to see whether we can bring that peace forward as soon as the conflict is over.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Prime Minister share my admiration for the prompt response of senior members of the Commonwealth to the invasion of Kuwait? Does he share my hope that those ties with the Commonwealth will endure long after various temporary entanglements have disappeared?
    The Prime Minister: I most certainly do, without qualification.
    Mr. Thorne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thorne: As justice delayed is justice denied, will my right hon. Friend, in his usual caring fashion, be kind enough to examine the efficiency of the courts and whether it is right that people, particularly from abroad, should be obliged to wait so long for their trial? I am thinking in particular of Mrs. Dina Le Tarle, the American wife of a surgeon, aged 29, who has been prosecuted for her actions while responding to muggers on the underground. She has now been waiting three months for her trial—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the case is sub judice, the hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.
    The Prime Minister: I understand the general point that my hon. Friend makes. The Government are concerned to reduce to a minimum delay in all criminal cases.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Prime Minister will know that many of the soldiers who are serving well in the Gulf are in the Army because they could not get jobs in civvy street and when the Gulf war is over there will be soldiers who, unfortunately, will be unfit for Army service. Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee them jobs in Glasgow arid the north of England?
    The Prime Minister: The early part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be widely resented by many of our forces in the Gulf. I heard from him no talk of employment during the 40 successive months when unemployment was falling.
    Mr. Page: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend is hearing from those who wish to see extensions to the sanction period in respect of the Gulf calls to bring about a ceasefire. For the benefit of the House, will my right hon. Friend surmise why those people are trying to put our troops in extra danger by giving Saddam Hussein the breathing space to develop a nuclear weapon?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a valid point. We are not interested in a pause or a ceasefire, which would simply enable Iraq to regroup, resupply its forces and place our troops in greater peril. The conflict over Kuwait will be concluded only when all the provisions of Security Council resolution 678 have been met.

The Gulf
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Gulf conflict and various matters arising therefrom.
The allied campaign to liberate Kuwait was launched two weeks ago. The initial aim was to establish air supremacy and then sufficiently to reduce the military capability of the Iraqis' armed forces so that the liberation of Kuwait will be successfully achieved with the minimum of casualties to our forces.
During this first period more than 30,000 allied sorties have been flown against what were initially substantial air defences. From those 30,000 sorties, 19 aircraft have not returned—of which five were British. The House knows of those most regrettable losses in the first week, but will be pleased to note that no British aircraft have been lost in the past week. That pleasure is combined with the deepest admiration for the skill and courage of our aircrews and of all the allies at the way in which they have sustained the vital air campaign. The initial denial to the Iraqis of the use of their airfields, in which the Tornados played such a critical part, the progressive suppression of their ground air defences, in which the Jaguars have been very active, and the shooting down of their aircraft seeking combat have enabled air supremacy to be achieved, so that hardened aircraft shelters and other military and strategic targets can be progressively attacked. That supremacy has been underlined by the sudden departure of about 100 Iraqi aircraft to Iran.
The achievements of the air campaign so far include the destruction of all nuclear reactor capacity and of about half Iraq's biological and chemical production; substantial damage to military fuel and ammunition stores; the putting out of action of a number of airfields; major damage to command and control facilities; the loss of centralised control of air defences; the progressive reduction of Scud launch capability; and the hitting of 22 bridges to inhibit the resupply of Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
However, substantial as those achievements are, I must warn the House that so vast is the Iraqi military capacity that it is likely to be some time yet before it will be sufficiently reduced for the allies to proceed with the liberation of Kuwait.
In that connection, we have received a request from the United States Government for a limited number of B52s to be temporarily based at RAF Fairford to undertake missions with conventional munitions against Iraqi military or strategic targets that are supporting the continuing Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. RAF Fairford is an established forward-operating base for B52s, and the Government have readily agreed to the request.
At sea, while the allied navies have been much involved since August in enforcing the embargo, it is only in the last few days that there has been any significant action against the Iraqi navy. In those engagements, in which Royal Navy Lynx helicopters and RAF Jaguars played an important role, 10 Iraqi patrol boats and minesweepers were sunk, and up to a further 25 damaged. A number of those vessels had an Exocet capability. Those naval encounters frustrated what may have been an amphibious attack designed to coincide with the land attack at Khafji that occurred yesterday.
1108
In respect of the 1st Armoured Division, the continuing delivery of supplies is further enhancing its battle-ready capability.
The House will be aware that we are now starting to hold a number of Iraqi prisoners of war. I reaffirm that they will be held in strict conformity with the requirements of the Geneva convention. That is our absolute commitment and we insist on those requirements being observed by the Government of Iraq as well. The parade of captured aircrew on television is in total breach of the convention—as would be any detention of them at strategic sites. I regret to inform the House that the International Committee of the Red Cross has still not even been informed of the names of any prisoners, let alone been granted the access to which it is entitled. That inhuman treatment of the prisoners is causing great distress and the thoughts of us all are with their families —as is our admiration for their courage and steadfastness at such a difficult time. I confirm that we are making the strongest representations to the Red Cross and the Iraqi authorities for our concerns to be met.
I refer next to our strengths in the Gulf. At the start of operations, we committed some 35,000 service men and women. We have since strengthened some units already deployed. Three additional battalions are being deployed to fulfil our obligations to any prisoners of war. With the extra Buccaneers that I announced on 25 January, total United Kingdom personnel now committed will rise to about 42,000.
The full operating costs in 1990–91 now total more than £1·25 billion, excluding the cost of any replacement of lost equipment and of munitions used, which so far totals nearly £200 million. The daily operating cost has risen to more than £4 million.
In connection with those costs, I very much welcome the announcement by the German Government of a contribution of a further 800 million deutschmarks to our costs. We are very hopeful of other contributions from our friends and allies in support of our efforts in support of the United Nations.
As to matters of particular interest to our forces and their families, there have been complaints over difficulties in the availability at post offices of the very popular air letter—the bluey—and steps have been taken that I hope have dealt with their problem.
Some hon. Members told me of service families being charged normal international airmail rates for sending parcels to the Gulf. I am pleased to announce that, from tomorrow, the Post Office is suspending the use of normal airmail rates for any parcels sent to BFPO addresses in the Gulf. All will be charged at the normal United Kingdom inland parcel rate. That clear instruction should end any confusion at post office counters.
The telephone service that we installed with the help of British Telecom and Mercury has been very popular, but it is obviously somewhat expensive. We therefore propose to subsidise calls for all service personnel from the Gulf, on a basis similar to that for forces in Northern Ireland. The value of that subsidy will be up to £10 a month—affecting, for example, five three-minute calls at half price. Many of our forces are not in early reach of a telephone kiosk at the moment, but their entitlement under that scheme will be accumulated for later use.
The House can be proud of the way in which the armed forces are contributing to the multinational effort. They have made an excellent start and, thankfully, losses have

1109
been few. However, there is some way to go yet, and there may be setbacks and at times unwelcome news. None the less, I have no doubt of the determination of the House and the country to give our forces the support that they need to bring their task to a successful conclusion.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and I think that the whole House would want to join in his tribute to the courage and skill which have been displayed by our airmen during the past two weeks, and to join him in noting that there have been no casualties and no losses to the air force during the past week. We also join him in deploring the Iraqi authorities' failure to intimate to the International Committee of the Red Cross the identity of prisoners and those people whom it is alleged have been detained at militarily sensitive locations.
We also note what the Secretary of State said about basing B52s at Fairford. Perhaps he could tell us why Britain was chosen and which, if any, other European countries have agreed to participate. We also note from his statement that the United States has not employed the normal "neither confirm nor deny" formula in respect of nuclear devices and that no nuclear air-launched cruise missiles will be carried by these aeroplanes. Will he also confirm that the aircraft will be based at Fairford only for the duration of the conflict?
We join the Secretary of State in expressing our appreciation for the German donation to the war effort. Which other countries have been approached for contributions?
We note the attempt to resolve the problem of telephone calls, but how does that facility compare with that afforded by AT and T to United States troops in the Gulf?
In his statement the Secretary of State mentioned the town of Khafji. Will he tell us more about the circumstances surrounding the liberation of that town, the casualties involved and what prisoners have been taken? Could he enlighten the House as to what military use the town of Khafji would have been to the Iraqis and whether he has any inkling of the idea behind the attack? Will he also give us some information about the latest developments regarding polluting of the Gulf by the Iraqis releasing oil? What is happening there?
Can the Secretary of State give any information to the House about reporters' access to troops, because journalists in Scotland have made a number of complaints about their inability to gain access to the Scottish regiments, which account for some 40 per cent. of the troops in the Gulf?
Mr. King: I thank the hon. Member for his general welcome and the support that he gave on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
I certainly confirm that the application in respect of the B52s is temporary, and that we have an absolute assurance that they will use only conventional munitions when operating from that base, which is important. Other countries will be assisting with the successful deployment of B52s in various ways and one other country will be involved in basing, but I think that it will shortly be making its own announcement and the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not anticipate it.
The contribution from Germany is certainly very much appreciated. I would rather not say which other countries
1110
we might be approaching. I am glad to say that some of our friends and allies are approaching us. There is widespread recognition of the world community wishing to make its contribution to the multinational effort in whichever way it feels appropriate.
The hon. Member mentioned telephones and several other hon. Members were shouting about that during my statement. It needs to be considered seriously. The Americans tried to introduce and had a trial of a free system. The problem was that people who were able to use it used it all the time and it broke down. There was much more criticism because people could not then have access to the limited lines and facilities that exist. It is my understanding that the Americans have now returned to a form of subsidised system.
We try to tackle the problems. An important point that we have to tackle is that many of the people whom we are trying to help are not trying to telephone this country from the Gulf; they are trying to telephone Germany. I am glad to say that, under an arrangement that we have made—I understand that it has not yet been possible for the Americans to match it—people will be able to telephone from the Gulf to Germany for the same subsidised low price as it would cost them to telephone this country. That is, I think, significantly better than what other countries have been able to do.
I can confirm that, according to my understanding, Prince Khalid has announced that Khafji is now clear of the intruders, and I am sure that we welcome the defeat of that incursion. Although there was a further oil discharge, and it was clear that the Iraqis were actively discharging and pumping oil into the Gulf, the latest information that I have received—uncorroborated, but believed to be true —suggests that it has now ceased.
Mr. Michael Mates: The whole House will wish to join my right hon. Friend in expressing its utter disgust at the way in which prisoners of war have been treated by the Iraqi authorities. Will my right hon. Friend, however, press the International Committee of the Red Cross rather harder to speak out robustly about what it knows to be the correct conditions, so that the relatives of prisoners of war can be assured not only that we are doing all that we can—which, frankly, is very little—but that the ICRC is, too? Will my right hon. Friend also say a little more about the arrangements that he has made in the Ministry of Defence to keep relatives up to date with the current position?
Mr. King: In answer to the latter question, let me say that we are operating a round-the-clock contact service, and are trying to provide as much information as we can about these difficult matters. As my hon. Friend will know, we are maintaining very close contact with the services welfare organisations to ensure that that is done effectively.
We are bringing to bear all possible pressure and influence on the ICRC. An ICRC medical team is now going to Baghdad and we hope that it will be able to carry the work forward. The president of the ICRC is coming to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister next week.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, associate myself with the Secretary of State's observations about the

1111
performance of our troops, especially that of the RAF pilots flying the ground attack version of the Tornado, whose bravery has been exemplary?
My hon. Friends and I accept that the deployment of B52s at RAF Fairford is justified if its purpose is to shorten the war and to reduce allied casualties. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand, however, that some people may be concerned about the deployment and will he take this opportunity of letting the people of the United Kingdom further into his confidence and explaining a little more clearly the current operational requirements for that deployment?
Mr. King: I am grateful for what the hon. and learned Gentleman said and especially grateful for his support of the RAF contribution to the campaign. The House will share his views.
I am also grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's clarification, on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends, of the position regarding the B52s. We want the conflict to end at the earliest possible time. Criticisms have been made of B52s in the past, but they have a precision bombing capability and they will be deployed against military and strategic targets to accelerate the end of the conflict and the liberation of Kuwait. That is clearly part of the purpose. B52s are already deployed in a number of airfields, but there is no further capacity there. It was necessary to increase the capacity and that is why the further requests have been made.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The German Government's contribution to the cost of the war is welcome, but should not account also be taken of the fact that the British taxpayer is at the same time making a substantial contribution to the cost of German unification? More important, does my right hon. Friend agree that the making of a series of ad hoc lump-sum payments to finance the war is not a satisfactory arrangement? The war may go on for a considerable time. What is needed is a general assessment relating to the international community, on a percentage or other basis, so that the burden can be fairly shared among all who will gain from the defeat of aggression.
Mr. King: I note my right hon. Friend's comments and understand the thoughts behind them. Costs have increased sharply due to the conflict, which has led to a loss of equipment and ammunition. Moreover, we have a large number of men and women out there. We are very grateful for the support that we have received, but it would be more satisfactory if it were on a slightly more regular basis. I shall certainly think about my right hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to the ICRC and the Geneva convention. It is absolutely essential that all those involved in the conflict should stay within the terms of the United Nations resolutions and the Geneva convention. The same criterion must be extended to our allies. Will the Secretary of State therefore discuss with his Israeli counterparts the treatment that they are handing out to the 1·7 million Palestinians on the west bank and Gaza? They are not observing the Geneva convention, particularly when it comes to the 24-hour curfew that they
1112
have imposed on the west bank and Gaza and the recent arrest of Sari Husseibh. May I ask him to raise these matters with his Israeli counterpart and to say whether the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been able to find out whether Her Majesty's Government have spare gas masks that could be given to the Israeli Government for use by the Palestinians?
Mr. King: I have not met my Israeli opposite number, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, but I shall certainly ensure that his comments are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary because I understand the strength of feeling about these issues.
Sir Bernard Braine: As the Father of the House, may I put to my right hon. Friend a simple request: to convey to the pilots and aircrew in the Gulf our great admiration of their courage, steadfastness and professional skill?
Mr. King: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who occupies his position with such dignity. I shall certainly ensure that the message is conveyed.
Mr. John Cartwright: Yesterday we saw Iraqi tanks apparently pretending to surrender in order to mount an attack. Oil has deliberately been pumped into the waters of the Gulf. We have seen missile attacks on Israeli cities and the misuse of allied prisoners of war. Does not all that demonstrate that Saddam Hussein has no intention of fighting this war under any sort of Marquess of Queensberry rules? Has that lesson now been learnt by the allied military commanders and will they plan accordingly?
Mr. King: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting in any way that we should walk away from the standards and codes of practice and behaviour that he would expect us to follow and we have no intention of doing so. The matters that he has rightly drawn to the attention of the House confirm what so many of us feel so strongly: that this cause, now embarked on, has to be seen through and that everything that has happened since shows what a very evil and monstrous military regime exists in Iraq.
Ms. Clare Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the part of the UN resolution that authorises the current action and calls for the restoration of peace and security in the region also authorises, if necessary, the invasion of Iraq in order to destroy Saddam Hussein and his war machine?
Mr. King: The issue of resolution 678 is one which, I am glad to say, is now being seriously addressed by a lot of people. I put it most simply: there is no point in seeking to achieve the liberation of Kuwait if Kuwait cannot stay liberated. The answering of that question deserves—not in slogans, nor by attempting to accuse some people of bellicosity or aggression—very serious consideration. That is precisely why, in its good sense, the United Nations put that point in the resolution. How it is going to be achieved —whether by economic sanctions or by military action —will depend on how the situation develops. But let there be no doubt that it would betray—as I have said on another occasion—all those who are prepared to risk their lives in this conflict if we settled for some halfway solution, only to have to return to the problem in a year's time.
Dame Jill Knight: Is not the reason for so many telephone calls to Germany from our forces in the Gulf the fact that many of their wives are in Germany? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that they are under great strain and that they are bearing it very bravely? Will he assure the House and the country that everything possible is being done to sustain and support those ladies?
Mr. King: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said because that is precisely the point. May I also express my appreciation to her and other hon. Members, some of whom have been to visit the wives in Germany. We must be very conscious of the fact that it is one thing for the wife of a service man if her husband goes to the conflict in the Gulf, but if that wife is herself in a foreign country, albeit an ally, it is a double separation. I am grateful for the interest taken by hon. Members and for what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Jack Ashley: The whole House will support what the Secretary of State said about the treatment of our prisoners of war. I want to put to him a delicate point which I hope will not be misunderstood as a sign of weakness. Because my support for the troops is so strong, I hope that I will not be misunderstood. The prisoners of war are entitled to proper treatment under the Geneva convention as of right and the Secretary of State is right to stress that to the Red Cross. At the same time, I believe that we should consider sending humanitarian aid to Iraqi children and sick people. That is not irreconcilable with fighting a strong war and may help our prisoners of war.
Mr. King: We have the greatest human sympathy for the suffering of many of the Iraqi people at this time. That is why so many of us strove so hard to find a peaceful solution. Saddam Hussein clearly does not care deeply about the suffering of his people and is quite prepared to embark on these adventures, as he showed in the Iran-Iraq war and now with his aggression against Kuwait. His aggression exposes his people, including children, to very real suffering. I hope that the Red Cross will be able to perform its wide role not just in respect of prisoners of war but perhaps in other ways.
Mr. Peter Viggers: As one who represents many of the service men and women in the Gulf and their families, may I join in the tributes paid to their courage and resilience. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been some criticism that the royal yacht Britannia, which was originally built as a hospital ship, has not been sent to the Gulf? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that RFA Argus, which he and I grew to know well during our time in Northern Ireland when it was under construction and then in commission, is the most suitable medical support ship? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the choice made by the Government was entirely to give our forces the best possible support?
Mr. King: Yes, that is absolutely correct. RFA Argus was built by Harland and Wolff and has been converted to a hospital ship. It will play a useful and substantial role. It was the most convenient ship to use. I must make it clear that we were well aware that Her Majesty would wish any requirement for a hospital ship for the troops to take precedence over the royal yacht's use in any royal duties. However, it was on the other side of the Atlantic at the
1114
time and would have needed some conversion work such as helicopter decks and other things and it was quicker and more convenient to use RFA Argus.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State accept that, as Iraq has invaded a second neighbouring country, those who demonstrate for peace would do well to demonstrate outside Iraqi embassies? As a former joint chairman of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, has he received any information from those allies on help in pursuing the campaign? I understand that their Opposition leader would like to send a field hospital.
Mr. King: I have not received any such request or suggestion, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in Dublin this afternoon. I am sure that he would be willing to receive any offers of support. The multinational support that we are getting is widely spread through many countries. As the evil of the Iraqi regime is now being exposed, many people wish to see how they can contribute. I pay tribute to the Republic of Ireland, which has contributed to other United Nations forces in the past.
Mr. Churchill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, Mr. Dick Cheney, General Colin Powell, President Bush and our Prime Minister on their conception and implementation of this campaign so far. It has been specifically designed to minimise allied and Iraqi civilian casualties. Does not that contrast most starkly with Saddam Hussein's flagrant disregard for human life —particularly civilian human life—in using Scud missiles against the civilian populations of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and his flagrant violation of the Geneva convention in respect of our own and allied prisoners of war?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm, from the evidence available to me, that it seems that our requirements to minimise civilian casualties and to ensure that the campaign is conducted so as to minimise our casualties are being met in the way that we would wish. None the less, we could experience setbacks, as I warned the House. We would much rather never have had this conflict in the first place. If there had been no aggression, no conflict would have been necessary.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many of us think that his announcement about telephone calls is unbelievably mean? Even if every man and woman in the services could use this facility, it would cost a maximum of £400,000 a month, whereas in the same period the war would have cost the country £130 million. As we hope to reclaim a substantial part of these costs from other countries, I urge the Minister to think again and to see whether he can achieve a better scheme to help men and women who have shown a readiness to put their lives on the line.
Mr. King: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said. We built on the experience of the United States authorities, which tried a free trial and found that it led only to greater congestion and fewer people—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may seek to advance this as a great cause, but I understand from all the reports that I have received that our forces regard it as a very fair arrangement. I believe—some of the soldiers in the Gulf would agree with this—that some of

1115
our forces in Northern Ireland are undertaking tasks, and have done so for many years, that are every bit as challenging and dangerous as some of the assignments in the Gulf. The right hon. Gentleman has not spoken up for them before. I am anxious to ensure, as far as possible, that we treat people fairly, and I think that this is a very fair scheme.
Dame Janet Fookes: Will my right hon. Friend consider the feasibility of setting up a blood donor unit in the Palace of Westminster so that those of us who want to support the troops in a practical way will be able to do so?
Mr. King: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. In many ways, practical suggestions mean a great deal to our forces in the Gulf. The Lord President has heard my hon. Friend's comments and he is happy to look into them.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Did the Secretary of State see the report in yesterday's Evening Standard that Iraqi troops were shot while they were praying? How does that square with the allies' claim that they would be sensitive to religious issues? Does he condone the killing of Iraqi troops while they were praying and what is he going to do about it?
Mr. King: I have no knowledge of that allegation. Obviously, I do not know whether it is possible to check whether it is true. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that in this regrettable conflict there will undoubtedly be a lot of propaganda and many attempts to deceive and exploit such emotions. The hon. Gentleman should check whether the allegations are soundly based before he makes them.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: My right hon. Friend has let it be known in the past few days that he is extremely worried that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis may attempt to use chemical weapons. Will he, through whatever channels remain open to him, ensure that the Iraqis are aware that, according to the conventions and articles of war, if they do such a thing, they will be dealt the most grievous retaliation?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It cannot be emphasised too strongly and I am grateful for the forceful way in which he put it.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to avoid the grim prospect of a land war in the Gulf would be for the undoubtedly brave and patriotic service men of the Iraqi armed forces to rid their country of a Government who have brought shame and destruction on their Arab nation? Will he assure the House that we and all members of the coalition respect the integrity of Iraq and that we want to help the Iraqis to reconstruct and to achieve a democratic future for their people?
Mr. King: We certainly have no quarrel with the people of Iraq and we have no ambition for their territory. We have the deepest sympathy for them as they suffer under the present regime.
Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend recall that before D day the
1116
allies had overwhelming command of the air, yet it still took a year before the land campaign was won? In that context, will he confirm that there will be no question of a ceasefire to enable Saddam Hussein to launch an Ardennes-type offensive?
Does he consider the 100 Iraqi aeroplanes that have gone to Iran to be effectively neutralised, or do they still constitute a threat?
Mr. King: On the last point, Iran is, of course, a member of the United Nations and therefore bound by the resolutions. It must—and has made it clear that it —will give full support to the United Nations resolutions, so I sincerely trust that the aeroplanes will play no further part in the conflict.
On the first point about carrying through the campaign, it would be wrong to our forces who are now embarked if there were to be a stop-start situation—a hesitation then a start again—which would allow the enemy to regroup. We have given Saddam Hussein every opportunity. We went not only a further mile, but a further mile again. He failed to take that opportunity. We must ensure the liberation of Kuwait and the achievement of the United Nations resolutions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State now address the substantial complaint in the Scottish press about its access to Scottish front-line troops in the Gulf? The Scottish regiments comprise up to 40 per cent. of the front-line forces. What is his Department doing to dispel the suspicion that, when looking for people to get shot at in the desert, the Ministry of Defence looks to Scotland first, but that when looking for people to comment or write on it, it looks to Scotland last?
Mr. King: I apologise, because the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) raised the matter with me and has already written to me. I can confirm that we looked into the matter. We have teams in the Gulf, but they cannot rely absolutely on unlimited access to the front-line area. A vacancy has now come up and a Scottish reporter will join one of the front-line teams.
Miss Emma Nicholson: In Germany yesterday, the wives expressed their particular concern about matters to do with bereavement. Will my right hon. Friend assure those wives and the House that Christian counselling will be provided for men and women who are wounded and that, in cases of bereavement, there will be Christian burial and, wherever possible, burial back in the United Kingdom if the next-of-kin so wish it?
Mr. King: On the first point about Christian counselling, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. She made a further point regarding burial. The usual practice is for forces to be buried close to the battlefield where they fall. The arrangement that we are making in this case—following our experience of the Falklands campaign—is that, although there will be temporary local burial, families will subsequently have the choice of a Christian burial for their relatives in the Gulf area or the repatriation of the body for burial in this country.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I make a plea to the Secretary of State on behalf of an admittedly small number of service men's families? I

1117
refer to those members of the American forces in the Persian Gulf who are Scots-born, whose parents in Scotland are given no facilities to write to them. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his officials to discuss the matter with their American counterparts? A laddie in my constituency has a son fighting with the American marines and receives no concessions whatever. Admittedly, I am talking about a small number of service men, but their interests need to be taken care of none the less.
Mr. King: I had not heard that, but I shall certainly look into the matter because I am sure that the Americans would wish people in that position to have any facilities that it was possible to give them.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the allies have control of the skies, with all that that means in military terms, is substantially due to what happened in the first days of the action and to the tremendous job of destroying airfield capability by the Royal Air Force Tornado crews? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the RAF presentation team will come to the House on 19 February and that hon. Members will have the opportunity to put to it any questions that they wish?
As for Scotland, Scots have always been proud to serve this country, whether in Scottish regiments, in the Royal Air Force or in the Royal Navy.
Mr. King: I certainly recognise the truth of my hon. Friend's latter sentence. I am pleased that the RAF presentation team is to come to the House. That will give hon. Members a chance to learn more about the training and background activities of the Royal Air Force which have contributed to its outstanding contribution to the multinational effort.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware re that some of the young Scottish soldiers are writing home to their mums and families asking for supplies such as talcum powder, boiled sweets, boots, gloves and toothpaste? [Laughter.] This is no light matter. Did the Secretary of State see on television the other night the appalling sight of young American soldiers shivering? I only hope that none of the British troops is sitting over there shivering while we bask in this heat and that they have the comforts that are due to them.
Mr. King: We have certainly sought to provide as well as we can for our forces, and hon. Members who have been out to the Gulf have concluded that our efforts have generally been successful. We have also sought to do something about the parcel service, in so far as it is possible to get parcels through, which it will be in the next days. I have not yet told the House of the very constructive offer made by United Carriers, which has depots round the country. If any of the mums to whom the hon. Gentleman referred takes her parcel to a United Carriers depot, the company will deliver it free of charge to the defence postal and courier headquarters in London, from where it will go free of charge to the Gulf.
Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm and reaffirm that allied war aims have not altered at all since 15 January and are contained entirely in the United Nations resolutions, especially resolution 678, and that every single action that has been taken by allied
1118
troops has been in pursuit of—and only in pursuit of— those United Nations resolutions and that that will remain the case until the end of the fighting?
Mr. King: I can certainly give that assurance. I believe that some people may not have studied those resolutions in the past. Those are absolutely the war aims on which we are agreed and which I think commentators, in analysing them, realise must be the objectives that we should pursue.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is the Secretary of State aware that constituents of mine whose husbands are working as civilians on the Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia are very concerned because their husbands, although they have been supplied with gas masks, have been given no extra clothing, training, instruction or assistance of any kind, as I understand it? Will he institute a thorough investigation so that British civilians working in the Gulf area may be fully protected from possible chemical warfare attacks?
Mr. King: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to civilians working for the Ministry of Defence or the Government or civilians working for contractors in the Gulf. It is initially the responsibility of their employers to ensure that they are properly provided for, and if employers approached us we would always see what assistance we could give. In the case of gas masks, we have sought to do that.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now a large number of local support groups for the families of the troops, and not just in the traditional garrison towns? I cite, for example, Gulf Troops and Family Support set up in my constituency by Mr. and Mrs. Brister, who have a son in the Gulf. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that such groups receive full encouragement and assistance and that there is no effort to squeeze them out because they are not traditional, long-established groups? Will he, in particular, talk to British Telecom and get it to be more helpful?
Mr. King: We would give them any help and encouragement that we could. I am very grateful to them for the role that they are playing. I am grateful, also, to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members because I believe that one of the most valuable forms of help and support for those groups is the interest of their local Members of Parliament.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not a sad, serious and chilling reminder of dangers ahead that the House has been told that only half Saddam Hussein's capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons has been destroyed? Recognising that he not only threatens to use these weapons but has used them in the past against Kurds and others and that this is a danger to our troops, to civilians in Saudi Arabia and to civilians in Israel, whether Arab or Jewish, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that every effort is being made to destroy not only the remaining 50 per cent. of production capacity but existing stocks, which he has not mentioned?
Mr. King: I can confirm that some storage has been destroyed, although we also believe that there has been some dispersal, mainly in the form of artillery ammunition, of some of the chemical stocks, for example. These matters underline what I said about the monstrous

1119
scale of that military machine. I believe that the House has been impressed by the scale of the air campaign and by the volume of munitions used. It is a measure of the scale of that machine that I have to report to the House that there is still some way to go before the land campaign can be safely embarked upon.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend accept that throughout the country there is the profoundest admiration for and gratitude to all who have taken part in this campaign so far, from the Prime Minister and himself down? Does he also accept that an essential prerequisite for the superb performance of our RAF Tornado pilots in this campaign was the low-flying training that they received in peace time? Does he therefore share my hope that when the conflict is over we shall hear a little less from the whingers and whiners who have tried to reduce those training programmes?
Mr. King: Nothing could have shown more clearly the importance of that low-flying training. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I know that in his constituency he will have had representations in the past and I appreciate his robust and important position on this.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Should not the right hon. Gentleman express his appreciation of the resolute support given to him in the latest resolution of the national executive committee of the Labour party? Does he understand that a large portion of the parliamentary Labour party does not support the leadership on this issue?
Mr. King: I would love to respond to that question, but I do not think that it is for me.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: What my right hon. Friend said about the importance that the Government attach to proper postal and telephone arrangements will come as a great reassurance to the parents of a 21-year-old lance-corporal serving in the 39th Field Regiment who contacted me today to tell me of the problems that they have had. Is my right hon. Friend aware of any special problems in people receiving mail from Germany—for example, soldiers receiving letters from their wives? If there is a backlog, will he undertake to have it examined?
Mr. King: A number of difficult complications have arisen because of the basis on which some units have come to serve in the Gulf, but we are trying to deal with them. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. We are anxious. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is very keen to hear any other points, and we shall certainly try to sort them out.
Mr. Bruce George: Most hon. Members appreciate the regular and lengthy reporting by the Secretary of State to the House. I do not expect the Secretary of State to respond to every rumour, but is he in a position to confirm or deny that some of the aircraft that left Iraq for Iran have been shuttling back and forth from that country? What does that say about the Iraqi aims? Is the right hon. Gentleman able to confirm the story, again emanating from the United States, that Iraqi missiles are being smuggled into Jordan, stuffed inside oil trucks?
Mr. King: I have no information on the latter point. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, there may have been some redisposition of some Iraqi planes within Iran, but I do not know whether the Iranian authorities chose to position them on alternative airfields for their own convenience. I am not sure whether the question implied that they were going back into Iraq. I have no evidence of their doing that.
Mr. Michael Grylls: May I ask my right hon. Friend about television coverage? Although nobody in this House would wish to restrict political comment, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is room for some self-restraint, particularly by recently retired senior service officers who appear on television and discuss detailed tactics, just at the moment when the ground forces are about to be engaged with the enemy? Does my right hon. Friend agree that some self-restraint might be a good idea?
Mr. King: I do agree. It is a challenge in a free society such as ours, when freedom of speech and comment is so readily available, when we are confronting a very dangerous enemy and when it may be possible for that enemy to glean important insights into our approaches and military practices from comments that are made. I hope and believe that those senior retired military officers are aware of that risk.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does not the battle over Khafji confirm what many of us feared and predicted from the outset—that once the ground fighting starts in earnest there will be many casualties on both sides? How many more people must die in this senseless conflict before a ceasefire is eventually called and more diplomatic effort is put into trying to build on attempts to find a peaceful solution, such as that which was tried yesterday by Secretary of State Baker and his Soviet counterpart?
Mr. King: A ceasefire now would be very welcome to Saddam Hussein. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who took an initial view on this, does not seem to have noticed during the pursuit of this campaign just how evil and dangerous is his monstrous military might. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) pointed out just how obscene are some of the practices that he follows. It would certainly be to the advantage of Saddam Hussein if we had a ceasefire, but I do not think that it would ensure future good order or benefit the world if we had one at this time.
Mr. David Tredinnick: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his decisions, first, to reduce telephone rates for troops—he will recall that I raised that very point before the war started—and, secondly, to introduce the domestic parcel rate, which will no doubt boost morale? Will he give an assurance that he is constantly looking at ways of boosting morale? Will he consider specifically the possibility of photographs being taken of troops in situ which will not compromise any secret positions, which could be sent home to families? That would be a significant morale booster.
Mr. King: Much of that is happening already, but I shall certainly look into the point. We are anxious to pursue any ideas which hon. Members may have. We have

1121
been able to do a certain amount. Other ideas will be obstructed for operational reasons and difficulties, but we shall do anything that we can.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Has the Secretary of State had time to consider the special problems faced by schools attended by the children of armed service personnel? Last week representatives from the National Union of Teachers visited some of those schools to discuss with teachers the problems that they are experiencing. Will the Secretary of State give additional support to those schools so that they can work effectively with the children, who are suffering enormous fear and trauma as a result of what is happening to their families? Most of the schools are based in Germany, so they do not have the normal environment and support and that is an additional problem. Will the Secretary of State try to do something about that?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Her point is a serious one. Tremendous efforts are being made. She will know that staff in the schools are receiving counselling and we are trying to deal with the problem. The problem for children during this television war is worrying. Every night they go home and see more pictures of what may be happening and of bombs, bullets and shells. We take the point seriously.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard to the business before the House.
Mr. Bob Cryer: It is our pensions.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cryer: I was elected to speak here, not to keep quiet.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but other hon. Members were also elected to speak.
I shall allow questions on the statement to run for a further 15 minutes. I hope that we shall then have a short period of business questions because we should reach the main business by 5 o'clock.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Returning to the subject of support from our European colleagues for the war effort, will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that, while Conservative MEPs wholeheartedly support the Government's position and are doing all that they can to persuade their European colleagues to do likewise, the Labour MEPs en bloc do not even support the official Labour party policy and are actively discouraging their European colleagues from supporting the war effort?
Mr. King: I am sorry to hear that. I did not respond to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). At a time when our forces are in the Gulf engaged in a dangerous conflict, I respect the position adopted by the Opposition on the matter. I am sorry that Labour Members of the European Parliament are not able to adopt the same position. Perhaps they are a little far away from the United Kingdom. They are very much out of step with the overwhelming opinion of the British people.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Will the Secretary of State confirm that diplomatic efforts will be redoubled, possibly through Tehran but also through whichever channels offer themselves, before we initiate a
1122
major commitment of our land forces to a land war from which shattered bodies would start to come home in horrendous and unacceptable numbers?
Mr. King: Our whole aim was, first, to avoid any conflict. Now that, regrettably, we find ourselves in this position, unless we are prepared to accept the aggression against Kuwait and what would clearly be the continuing expansion of Iraq and its particularly evil regime, we must face up to the reality of conflict, as the hon. Gentleman understands. That being the case, we are anxious to find ways of minimising casualties. We hope that it will be possible to do that. That is why the air campaign has been structured as it has. It is the first stage of what we hope will be the speedy liberation of Kuwait with the minimum casualties, not just among our forces—which is important —but among the people in Kuwait.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), on the firm way in which he condemned to the former Iraqi ambassador the treatment apparently meted out to allied prisoners of war? Will he confirm from the Dispatch Box that those who place prisoners of war in a place of danger, as well as those who ordered them to be placed there, will be brought before an international war crimes tribunal regardless of the outcome of the conflict?
Mr. King: We are taking a careful look at the conduct of any people involved in the conflict who may be in breach of conventions or international law. In the early days, when we had the outrageous treatment of hostages before the conflict started, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reminded people that under international law every individual is responsible for his actions.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the war aims of Britain and the United States do not include either the invasion and destruction of Iraq as a country or the use of nuclear weapons in the prosecution of the conflict?
Mr. King: I have already made it clear that our aims are the aims which are set out in the United Nations resolutions. They have not changed. They remain our objectives. We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. We seek no acquisition of their territory. We make those points clear. We have to seek the earliest possible implementation of the United Nations resolutions. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Derek Conway: Will my right hon. Friend convey the thanks of the House to the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association and to district headquarters, including the western district office which is based in my constituency, for the assistance that they are giving to Gulf support groups? Many wives of service men are giving up a great deal of their time, at considerable expense in telephone calls, to pull the families together so that they may share their concerns and news of their loved ones. It is an important morale booster to the troops to know that this is going on at home and that so many people in his Department are assisting them.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning SSAFA, not just because of what it is doing now. It will be an abiding encouragement to our forces to

1123
know not just that SSAFA is there during the present crisis but that its work will go on day in, day out in the years ahead. Certainly its work is beyond praise.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the past month I have been told constantly that I speak only for myself? I accept that. Is he also aware that I suspect that I speak for all my Scottish colleagues when I dissociate us from the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? I doubt seriously that the Iraqis will ask whether men are Scottish, English, Irish or Welsh before they shoot them.
Is the Secretary of State really using the comparison of our troops in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, with our troops in the Gulf for his pathetic approach to free telephone calls? Is he aware that when the open golf championship is played at St. Andrews, British Telecom can put in, overnight, 200 extra lines? When we walk along the Embankment, we can hardly get through because of all the British Telecom lines into the Secretary of State's own Department. Yet he is telling British troops that they cannot make free telephone calls home. Is not the position the same as with the poll tax—"It is only delayed; you will pay it when you get back. Lay down your lives and the Tories will have your money"?
Mr. King: I am disappointed in the hon. Member, who is an old pal. That is a disgraceful way to behave. We have addressed the matter seriously. It is easy to shout for free everything. The Americans tried it. The system broke down and the congestion was appalling. The Americans found that it was fairer for people to make a contribution, which helped to ensure that the maximum number of people could make calls. This is not Glasgow. It is not a matter of linking up to the golf course in St. Andrews. This is out in the desert, in forward positions. There is huge congestion. [Interruption.] I do not regard this as a laughing matter.
We are trying to do the best we can for our forces. Hon. Members should understand that the telephone system, with its limited range, has to cover 500,000 American troops, all wishing to ring home, more than 40,000 British troops and more than 10,000 French troops. The extra congestion poses major problems. There may be cheap publicity in appearing to stand up for our boys, but we are genuinely trying to do the best we can. The messages coming back are that the boys think that the present arrangement is fair.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Although it came rather later than might have been desirable, will my right hon. Friend warmly welcome the German Chancellor's clear statement that Germany would regard an attack on Turkey as an attack on NATO and, therefore, a genuine matter for German contribution? If that is allied with the German Defence Minister's statement that NATO is required because of the uncertainty in the Soviet Union, it is clear that the united Germany understands the role of NATO and is willing to play its part in NATO activities against possible out-of-area conflicts such as that in the Gulf.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The House will have appreciated the positive statements made by Chancellor Kohl. I have also talked to my counterpart, the reconfirmed Defence Minister, Gerhard Stoltenberg, and I
1124
am grateful for the support that the Germans are giving us, not merely the funds to which I referred today, but the significant assistance in kind as well.
Mr. John McAllion: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the main lessons of the past two days of land fighting is that whatever else the war may be it will not be short, sharp and quick? Does the right hon. Gentleman now understand that not only must allied commanders resist being panicked into an early land war, but allied politicians must do everything in their power to avoid the necessity for a land war at all? Therefore, will he tell the House what he and other Ministers have done to open up diplomatic channels with Baghdad to secure the negotiated withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait so that they do not have to resort further to the carnage and killing to which he did not refer but which we all know has been taking place in the Gulf area for the past two weeks?
Mr. King: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said. I have made it clear that we sought every way at the United Nations—[Interruption.] I assume that the hon. Gentleman supports the United Nations. He knows perfectly well that the United Nations made every effort that it could to avoid conflict in the Gulf. It failed and it took the action to which it believed there was no alternative. We all regret it, but I still hope that, provided we stick to the campaign, we will achieve a reasonably early solution without the sort of casualties to which he refers. That is certainly our determination. The conflict can be ended now if Saddam Hussein immediately removes from Kuwait, ends the aggression and gives the clear assurance that he has no future aggressive intentions.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of the British people believe that there will be peace in the middle east only when Saddam Hussein has been overthrown and, to that end, it will be necessary to do more than just evict the Iraqis from Kuwait?
Mr. King: I have made it clear that there is no point—well, not no point, but that it will be of limited benefit to liberate Kuwait, with the pain and difficulty involved, if it does not stay liberated. These are serious issues and the House, the country, the United Nations and the world are starting seriously to debate what would be the best approach to the eventualities that we may face at that time.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Partly since the effects of Chernobyl did not respect human frontiers, will the Secretary of State give us the facts on the damage to nuclear installations? Is there a radiation, Chernobyl-like problem? Does that go into, for instance, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Iran? What do we know about the effects of the dispersal of biological weapons? Those who bomb biological agent factories had better be clear about what the dispersal effects may be.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that before any of those attacks could be contemplated, it was necessary to conduct the most thorough research into the methods of attack to minimise the risk of contamination outside the sites or even outside the buildings. The information available to me is that that has been achieved. General Schwarzkopf was asked this question and he gave a similar answer. Detailed research was conducted into the weather conditions that should apply, the time of day and

1125
the temperature at which attacks should be conducted and the method of attack that should be used against the building concerned.
This highlights the contrast between the way in which our air campaign has been conducted and the Iraqis' indiscriminate attacks with missiles. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will approve of that contrast. I know that he disapproves of Iraq's having nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and stores and that, therefore, he understands the importance of ensuring that those weapons be eliminated and that the elimination be carried out in the most painstaking way to minimise the risk of contamination.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend has quite rightly stressed the importance, in moral terms, of the postal services to our forces in the Gulf. The matter has been raised in the House on many occasions. May I say how pleased people are at what the Post Office has now decided to do and how delighted I personally am that he paid tribute to United Carriers. But why is the Post Office always the tail-end Charlie? Why cannot the Post Office be up front? Why cannot it be the first organisation to provide a parcel post service to our forces at a very low rate?
Mr. King: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. I shall ensure that his remarks are conveyed to the chairman of the Post Office, who, from my personal knowledge of him, will deeply resent the "tail-end Charlie" accusation but will, instead, be first-past-the-post Nick.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that those hon. Members who have not been called to put questions on this statement will have some priority next time.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Please, no points of order.

Business of the House
4.41 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Second Reading of the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill.
TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock, consideration of Lords amendments to the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
Second Reading of the Namibia Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (5th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Crisis in Training".
Afterwards, there will be a debate entitled "The Neglect of British Science and Science Education".
Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill.
FRIDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the British Technology Group Bill.
At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 6 February to consider the unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 18 January, submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on proposals relating to rules for the application of levy in the milk and milk products sector.
[European Standing Committee A Wednesday 6 February
Relevant European Community Document
Unnumbered Milk Quotas: definition
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 29-vii (1990-91)]
Dr. John Cunningham: May I first thank the Leader of the House for arranging the important statement that has been made today by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and ask him for an assurance that the House will have the benefit of regular statements bringing us up to date about circumstances in the Gulf—not just for the benefit of hon. Members, although that is very important, but also for the benefit of the public at large?
When can we expect a debate on the Scottish Rate Support Grant Order? We have debated the proposals for England and Wales already. It is very important to Scotland that we should have an early opportunity to debate the impact of poll tax there. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to assure us that such an opportunity will be provided soon.
In June last year, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Leader of the House published proposals on the means of dealing with private Bills in the House, and called for comments. Has the Leader of the House had

1127
a chance to assess the responses that he has received? Can he give any indication as to when we shall have an opportunity to consider any proposals that he may make for new ways of dealing with private business? I understand that this will require primary legislation. Can the Leader of the House give any indication when the House may expect such proposals?
We now know that Budget day will be 19 March, but we have not yet had an opportunity to debate the Chancellor's autumn statement of last year. It would be rather odd—indeed, unsatisfactory—if we were to debate the Chancellor's autumn statement just a day or two before the presentation of his Budget. I understand the Government's reluctance to arrange such a debate, particularly as the country slides deeper and deeper into a damaging and debilitating recession, but I must press the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on the autumn statement as quickly as possible. It is a matter of great importance to us all.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about statements on the Gulf situation. As I have told him, we are all anxious to ensure that the House is kept fully informed—I take his point about the wider audience—whenever appropriate. I hope that the fact that this week we have had two statements and lengthy periods of questions on them shows that we certainly intend to fulfil that commitment.
With regard to the Scottish RSG order, I have to be careful about making any predictions. In this job I have learnt quite rapidly that things can arise that upset what one originally intended to do. I hope that it will be possible to deal with this matter in the week beginning 11 February.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of private Bills procedure. This is an important subject, in which a number of hon. Members take an interest. I welcome the opportunity to make the position clear. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, the Government published last summer a consultation document entitled "Private Bills and New Procedures". This resulted in over 100 responses broadly in favour of a new system. The primary legislation required to implement the proposed changes will be complex, and it will not be ready for introduction in the present Session. However, subject to the usual reservations about anticipating the contents of future Queen's Speeches, I can say that such a Bill should be ready for introduction at the earliest opportunity.
I have also been discussing with the Chairman of Ways and Means a number of possible changes to Standing Orders for the handling of private business. It is our agreed aim that these should be put before the House by Easter and that, if approved, they should come into operation at the start of next Session. This will, I hope, give all involved and interested in private Bills adequate notice before new Bills are prepared and deposited. In conjunction with the Chairman of Ways and Means, I shall ensure that the House has time to study the proposals before they are moved.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about the autumn statement, I can tell him that there is certainly no reluctance to debate these matters. Indeed, in recent weeks we have had a number of debates on the economy. However, now that the Select Committee on the Treasury
1128
and Civil Service has reported, I recognise the importance of getting on with that debate, and I hope that I shall be able to cover it in my next business statement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is important business before us today and considerable pressure from Members who want to speak. I shall allow questions to continue until 5.5 pm, and then we really will have to move on. I hope that those hon. Members who were called to put questions on the statement about the Gulf will not seek to participate again at this stage. That would help.
Mr. David Harris: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to take a preliminary look at the experience of the two European Standing Committees this week. If not, may I draw his attention to two potential problems? The first concerns the availability of documents, in view of the fact that these Committees will do tremendously important work. The second concerns the composition of the Committees. Given the nature of their work, I wonder whether he might consider increasing the size of the Committees. I think that this will be an important matter.
Mr. MacGregor: I said when we debated these Committees recently that it was important that we be ready to review them. I referred not only to a major review of how things have been going but also to a preparedness to review things that occur in the Committees from time to time. I shall certainly look into my hon. Friend's point about documents. The composition of the Committees is a matter on which we shall have to keep a careful watch.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Despite the fact that my Northern Ireland colleagues and I have supported fully the Government's policy in relation to the Gulf, we deplore the fact that we have not had sufficient opportunity to ensure that proper tribute is paid to Northern Ireland service men—Catholic and Protestant—who are serving loyally with British forces there. I trust that such an opportunity will be afforded at the earliest possible date. We also want an early opportunity to learn whether the Leader of the House is satisfied with the Irish Government's contribution to the campaign.
Mr. MacGregor: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I am sure that he will have an opportunity to repeat his comments in future debates on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence would want to join me in paying tribute for all that is being done by the forces from Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that the operation of the new European Standing Committees should be reconsidered. Given that we are trying to improve scrutiny procedures, will my right hon. Friend re-examine the question of right hon. and hon. Members being able to make telephone calls on dedicated lines, and of being able to send mail to the European institutions at the usual postage rate, using official envelopes? I remind my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One question would be fair. There is great pressure on time today.
Mr. Dykes: Other long questions have been asked, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I know, but the hon. Member must have consideration for his colleagues.
Mr. MacGregor: The European Standing Committees are a new experiment. They are important not only in maintaining close scrutiny over European legislation but in relation to working late hours in the Chamber. I accept that, because they are new, it will be important to monitor them carefully to ensure that we continue to get them right. As to my hon. Friend's second point, the question of communications facilities will go before the Services Committee shortly.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House provide an early opportunity for a debate on small firms, particularly in view of the record number of liquidations and bankruptcies, and of the penal and punitive interest rates, which are forcing them out of existence? I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a letter from the president of Bradford chamber of commerce to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he refers to the
"increasing and damaging pressure being put on small manufacturing firms".
It is clear that the concern expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends is more widespread, and that there should be a debate on that topic.
Mr. MacGregor: I would love to go into the whole argument about small firms, but I will not do so now in view of time constraints. Right hon. and hon. Members had an opportunity to discuss that issue in economic debates in the past, but I do not doubt that it could be raised again in future debates.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the second debate next Wednesday will provide an opportunity to discuss the possible threat to nuclear physics in the United Kingdom, as a result of our ever-increasing contribution to CERN, the European centre for nuclear research?
Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, any matters relating to science can be raised in that debate.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House urgently arrange a debate on the prosecution of the Gulf war? A business motion on today's Order Paper will allow right hon. and hon. Members to remain in the House all night to debate the burning topic of ministerial salaries and pensions, yet the time allowed for questions on the statement today by the Secretary of State for Defence was insufficient to allow all right hon. and hon. Members who wanted to contribute to do so.
A further debate on the Gulf would provide the Secretary of State for Defence with an opportunity to re-read yesterday's Evening Standard, which publicised a report, obviously cleared by military censors, in which Colonel Reisch, who leads the American pilots, said that the bombing of Iraqi soldiers as they prayed by the roadside was "a fun mission". Is that what the war is about—having fun by blowing up people at prayer?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows full well the seriousness of the situation, and the objectives of allied action have been spelt out on many occasions. There have been two recent debates, but I am prepared to consider
1130
another when the need arises. The two long statements made this week should indicate that we are making every effort to ensure that the House is kept fully informed.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Last night, the Government forced through the House, with a miserable majority, the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. That legislation, for which only 90 minutes of debate was allowed, will radically alter Northern Ireland's health service, to its detriment, and to that of the people who use it. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time next week for a debate, in which I could urge the Government to give people the right to vote in a local referendum before a hospital is permitted to opt out of the health service? I am thinking particularly of the Ulster hospital in Dundonald, in my constituency.
Mr. MacGregor: Right hon. and hon. Members had more than one and a half hours to consider such matters last night. There are considerable pressures on the business of the House, so debates must be contained. I must tell my hon. Friend that I see no possibility of a further debate next week.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House seriously and urgently reconsider giving Government time to another debate on the Gulf? Members of Parliament number more than 650, yet the overwhelming majority of them have been denied an opportunity to express their views about that serious war. Today's statement and questions lasted more than an hour, yet several hon. Members were denied an opportunity to speak—notably the dissenting voices among them. Given that 8 million or 9 million British people oppose the war, if the objectives change and it becomes clear that the destruction of Iraq—with all the casualties that would involve—is the Government's new policy, support for the war will disappear like snowflakes on a boiler. For God's sake give us a chance to express the views of the men and women who are against the war. The Leader of the House has a responsibility to do that, and I hope that he will grant that request.
Mr. MacGregor: I reject absolutely the hon. Gentleman's assertion about the direction in which public opinion will go. I think that public opinion is very clear. As to parliamentary opinion, there have been two votes recently, in which right hon. and hon. Members were able to declare their position. I can add nothing to my earlier remarks about opportunities for discussion and debate in the House in future weeks.
Mr. David Nicholson: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate soon on early-day motion 372?
[That this House notes with concern that the good work done by the Taunton Association for the Homeless, which has been providing hostel accommodation for 15 years, is in danger because of the Government's decision to withdraw the hostel's deficit grant; and calls on the Government to ensure funds are available to secure the position of this voluntary organisation.]
That motion, which is in the name of several Opposition Members, concerns Taunton Association for the Homeless in my constituency. While I welcome the interest that those hon. Members have shown in that excellent voluntary organisation, such a debate would enable me to point out that I raised the problem with Ministers before the new year. I received an excellent and

1131
helpful reply from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), which gives the opportunity of funds for that organisation. I may point out that, in that respect, as in others, the Labour party is out of date.
Mr. MacGregor: I have read early-day motion 372, and my hon. Friend has already made some good points in relation to it. He will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced very early this year new and improved arrangements for the capital and revenue funding for special needs provision by housing associations. Over the next two years, we will more than double the available resources for revenue support, which will safeguard schemes already in receipt of grant and provide support for a continuing programme of new schemes.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange a statement next week on the money allocated by Germany to Britain in the mercenary Gulf war? Germany lost the last war, but now the British Government are going cap in hand to the losers—who are now the winners, supposedly—to beg money, grovelling at the feet of the Germans in trying to provide the necessary finances. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, within 24 hours of the ink being dry on that £275 million allocation, the Germans increased their interest rates, with the consequence that they made more money on the exchanges than the value of their contribution? The net result is that, 24 hours later, we are even worse off. Will the Leader of the House also say what the Marquess of Queensberry rules are in respect of B52 carpet bombing?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman asks the most tortuous questions. Earlier this afternoon, he received very clear answers from my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of the German contribution.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I ask my right hon. Friend to anticipate the return to the Floor of the House of the Road Traffic (Random Breath Testing) Bill, which is aimed at reducing casualties and offending. Given the short ten-minute debate and Division, and the short debate in Committee without a Division on whether or not it would be better to encourage a change of behaviour or to take more police action, may the House have the opportunity for a full debate on Report? That would allow right hon. and hon. Members to decide whether it would be better to reduce bad behaviour, which is my view, or that more police action is the way to stop people offending—which is the view of the shadow Transport Minister.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important Bill. At this stage, I cannot say exactly what arrangements will be made when it returns to the Floor of the House, but I hope that there will be a full opportunity to debate the important matters that he has mentioned.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware from his own experience that British agriculture is facing
1132
its worst financial crisis for 50 years. To try to restore confidence in that ailing industry, will he find time to debate Government policies?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the key issues here is the proposal that the Commission is discussing at present relating to further Community reforms. I understand that the Commission is meeting today to finalise its proposals, with a view to presenting them to the Council of Agriculture meeting next week. I think that he will be well aware from the responses made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in questions last week of our attitude to a number of those proposals, and of our determination to try to fight to protect British interests and to remove the discriminatory elements in the proposals, if there are any. I am sure that there will be an opportunity to explore these matters in some form or another when the position becomes somewhat clearer, and I shall bear in mind what he has said.
Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend has said that European Standing Committee A will consider agriculture matters. Will he also find an early opportunity to allow the House to debate agriculture and farm incomes? He knows better than most of the Government's efforts on behalf of farmers but, bearing in mind the uncertainty over GATT and over EC reform proposals, would it not be helpful to have a debate in the House on that subject?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right to add the GATT round, because it is another major aspect of this issue. We are somewhat unclear exactly what the proposals will be, so it is important to wait and see how matters develop, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 364, "Privatisation for Crown Suppliers Transport", and the allegation that I have made about a prospective buyer, Mr. Bill Pinkney?
[That this House notes a series of parliamentary replies from the Parliamentary Secretary, Department of the environment, dated 24th January relating to the sale of Crown Suppliers transport section and investigations into the activities of civil servant Mr. Bill Pinkney the prospective buyer; notes the evasive nature of the Ministerial reply, Official Report, column 27, which refers to 'the Crown Suppliers following up the matters arising from that audit'; notes that under the general heading of 'Disciplinary matters', the Crown Suppliers after a full investigation in 1990 did find that the level of Mr. Pinkney's behaviour fell below the level which was expected of an official; notes that the investigation found overpayments, dubious entries, unauthorised payments and a failure to declare a conflict of interest with a company called Turnbulls; notes that the Chief Executive of Crown Suppliers did consider formal charges but decided not to proceed with them as Ministers did not wish to prejudice the sale of the transport section to Mr. Bill Pinkney and his associates; notes that attempts by senior civil servants under instruction from Ministers to hide away the nature of irregularities and disciplinary offences were orchestrated so as to avoid embarrassment to the Government; questions the role of Shandwick, the public relations company, in preparing grossly misleading press

1133
releases relating to the sell off to a so-called management buy-out which is not a buy-out at all but an offer funded by a North of England second hand car dealer; and unreservedly condemns Ministers for their shameful actions.]
Can we have an assurance that, if Mr. Pinkney is a successful purchaser of the transport section, an announcement will be made not in a written reply but orally at the Dispatch Box so that we can ask questions relating to the activities of that gentleman?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that the hon. Gentleman has already been asking questions on that matter. As far as the early-day motion is concerned, I must make it clear that Ministers at the Department of the Environment are not generally consulted about disciplinary matters, and were not consulted about Mr. Pinkney's case. However, appropriate action was taken by the Crown Suppliers' management. Nor have Ministers issued any instructions about the treatment of any irregularities involving Mr. Pinkney.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering a bid for Mr. Pinkney's team for the Crown Suppliers' vehicle hire and maintenance business, and his conclusions will be announced as soon as possible. Members of the team, sources of finance, control and structure of the proposed new company will be included among the factors to be taken into account in assessing their bid for the business. It would, therefore, be premature to discuss the matter in the House.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is about five years since the House had an opportunity to discuss civil aviation policy? Given the current problems facing civil aviation, which have been brought to a head, first by the Civil Aviation Authority's recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport on traffic distribution rules and secondly by the difficulties facing two major American carriers at Heathrow—which introduces the question of successor rights and negotiations with the United States over the Bermuda 2 agreement on bilaterals—it is important that the House has the opportunity to debate these matters. A ferocious debate is taking place outside this Chamber. Surely it is time that we had the opportunity to debate it within this Chamber.
Mr. MacGregor: The second point to which my hon. Friend refers is one of great concern, especially since the United States' delegation was unable to continue negotiations on 30 January because its instructions did not allow it sufficient flexibility to enable a conclusion to be reached on certain matters put to it. It has been made clear that the Government are willing to resume negotiations as soon as the United States wishes to do so. I am aware of the importance of this matter, and of the concern felt by hon. Members, and I shall certainly discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Robert Hughes: When will the Leader of the House fulfil his long-standing promise to let us debate Lord Cullen's report on the Piper Alpha? Can we have two days for that debate, in view of the complexity of the subject and the wide-ranging interests involved? Secondly—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, at this stage in the evening, one question is sufficient.
Mr. MacGregor: I regret that it has not been possible to agree a suitable time for a debate yet. I shall continue to bear the possibility in mind but, knowing the business in front of the House, and especially the need to enable the House to discuss Gulf matters, I do not think that a two-day debate will be possible.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Currie, but very briefly.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Further to the point about the important European Standing Committees, is my right hon. Friend aware that their first meetings this week were a bit of a shambles? Does he accept that we need bigger Committees, we need Whips, we need the papers in time, and, most important of all, we need to know the timetable so that we know when they will meet, and what they will be discussing in future?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of some of the problems that occurred this week and, as I have already said, we need to be willing to review them. As regards information about the timetable, I hope that the fact that I announce the Standing Committees in the business statement will help.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Reverting to that very subject, is the Lord President aware that last Tuesday's European Standing Committee B disposed of its business, but yesterday my information is that European Standing Committee A did not, and that it decided to sit again—I believe, next Wednesday? Can the Minister tell us about this? Can he confirm that it will sit again? Can he announce when it will do so, and can he confirm that it will not clash with his announcement about that same Committee meeting on Wednesday next?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that that can be sorted out and that the European Standing Committee will meet to complete the other business and also to discuss this other important and urgent matter.
Mr. William McKelvey: When does the Leader of the House expect to be able to comply with the Standing Orders of the House and set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I have already said about that matter on a number of occasions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Today the Government tabled a statutory instrument imposing an eight-day continuous ban on the fishing industry. Is the Leader of the House aware that the objections to this statutory instrument by Members with fishing interests involve the fact that it is dangerous, and that it might cost lives? In view of that, will he arrange for a debate in the near future—not in a month's time—so that hon. Members can face up to the question whether it is morally right to impose further dangers upon fishermen at sea?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that the issues involved in this matter have already been debated in the House. I cannot promise a debate next week, but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Points of Order
5.7 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that it has been announced that the cases against 30 Iraqi and Palestinian nationalists detained by the Home Secretary are to be heard during the next three days. These people have not been told of the case against them, except in general terms. They are not allowed legal representation and, even if the tribunal sat for ten hours a day—unusual in legal circles—there would be only about an hour for each case.
I wonder whether requests have been received for the Home Secretary to make a statement, because Britain has set itself high standards in the administration of justice, and natural justice demands that each case be given a thorough hearing. It is for the Home Secretary to maintain those standards, not to short-circuit them. I wonder whether, if a request is made for a statement, or if further explanation is forthcoming from the Government, you will facilitate such a statement.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to grant statements of that kind but for the Leader of the House, who is present and who, I am sure, has heard what has been said.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called all four hon. Members previously, and they will have heard what I said about their other colleagues who wish to participate. However, I have to take points of order, so I shall take Mr. Ross first.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I hesitate to cause delay, but this is a serious matter. The lawyers of the people who will face tribunals, if they go ahead, this weekend will have to find support against the deportation orders from the period of 15, 16 or 17 years while those people were resident in this country, and they do not have enough time. The Home Secretary ought to come here to make a statement to reassure us that the high standards of justice that we expect in this country will be extended to those individuals.
Mr. Speaker: It would have been much more appropriate if matters of this sort had been raised with the Leader of the House during business questions, because he can answer those questions and I cannot answer them as points of order.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that this is on something different.
Mr. Hughes: While I make no complaint, Mr. Speaker, that you quite properly called those hon. Members who rose during the Gulf debate and during business questions or that they raised issues then that they would have raised during the Gulf statement, could you consider those hon. Members who did not seek to rise during the Gulf statement but tried to raise matters during business questions and were not allowed to do so? Indeed, as you said, some of the issues being raised now could have been mentioned during business questions had there been time.
Mr. Speaker: That is a helpful suggestion, but I always keep a list of the names of the hon. Members who are called last in business questions so that they will at least be given some priority next time, even if they are not called first. Good luck.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is on that very matter.
Mr. Speaker: Oh, really?
Mr. Cryer: At the conclusion of the Gulf statement, Mr. Speaker, you said that you could not call half a dozen of us, but that there might be other opportunities. The opportunities are limited, however, because—understandably—so many hon. Members wish to speak. You often say in such circumstances that you will bear in mind those who have not been called when another statement is made on the same topic. I hope that you will be able to do that in the event of a future Gulf statement.
Mr. Speaker: I have already said that. Lastly, I call Mr. Spearing.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On an unavoidable point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the Leader of the House announce that, next Wednesday, European Standing Committee A would consider two matters: first, the matter that it started to consider yesterday, and, secondly, the question of milk quotas definition, which was referred to in the business statement and in questions.
Will the Leader of the House assure us that the second debate can indeed last for two and a half hours, as provided in Standing Orders? If he cannot give us that assurance, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will lay the necessary business motion to enable it to do so?
Mr. Speaker: What goes on in Standing Committees is not a matter for me, but I am sure that the Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Orders of the Day

  Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.11 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I should like to make two points at the outset. First, the vast majority of the proposals that we are considering today, both in the Bill and in the subsequent motion endorsing the draft regulations, follow Top Salaries Review Body recommendations; secondly, they were made some time ago, so, to put it mildly, we have not shown indecent haste in implementing them. There is no question of our doing hon. Members any favours. The proposals are modest and overdue. As some of the main benefits—taking both together—go to widows of Members, who have often had to make many sacrifices as a result of their parliamentary life and whose rewards would not, I think, be described as great, I hope that we can agree to them tonight.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am sorry to intervene so early in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It is noteworthy, however, that the Leader of the House is doing something for Ministers, while he must be aware that a large majority of Members want something to be done about their resettlement grant. Surely he should consider that as a matter of urgency.
  Mr. MacGregor: I did not think it right to deal with that at the very beginning of my speech, as I am supposed to be dealing with the Bill. I am very much aware of the concern that is felt about the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and I intend to say something about it later, but I think that it would be better if I confined my initial remarks to the Bill.
  Mr. Ray Powell: I do not want to labour the point, but, as 351 hon. Members on both sides of the House signed the early-day motion, I would have expected the right hon. Gentleman to pay it due regard in his opening remarks.
  May I ask whether it is incumbent on any Member, whether or not he is a Minister—or even Mr. Speaker—to participate in a debate on a Bill as a result of which he will benefit directly? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister, be entitled to receive any benefit as a result of the Bill, and will he specify who will receive such benefits?
  Mr. MacGregor: I intend to cover the question of resettlement grants in my opening remarks, but I think that it is best for me to do so in an orderly fashion. We are taking the Bill and the motion together, and almost every Member will benefit in one way or another: if we excluded those who will do so, the debate would be very odd.
  On behalf of the House, let me thank my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), for all his work. He did a great deal
  1138
  to bring us to the point that we have reached today. I am very pleased that he is present, and that I am able to say that to him.
  As the House will recall, in July 1987 we invited the TSRB to undertake a review of the parliamentary pension scheme, the pensions of the Prime Minister, Speaker and Lord Chancellor and ministerial severance pay. When the TSRB reported in May 1988—let me stress that date—we made it clear in a written answer that we accepted the recommendations. Last January, the House debated that report, together with the Government Actuary's report on the parliamentary contributory pension fund laid before the House in 1989. The Bill implements those TSRB recommendations, together with a number of other items.
  We are also making improvements to the parliamentary pension scheme through our regulation—making power under the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987. The improvements for Ministers and those for other Members need to be seen as a whole, but procedurally we shall be debating the regulations separately from the Bill. In line with the undertaking given by my predecessor as Leader of the House in May 1987, we have set down the regulations in draft so that Members have an opportunity to comment.
  I shall, of course, say more about the regulations when we debate them. I will say now only that I believe that the improvements in the Bill and the regulations strike a fair balance between the interests of Ministers and those of other Members. I believe that I have the full support of the trustees in saying that.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I know that the Bill and the regulations are being taken separately, but surely it would be in the interests of the House for us to be able to debate both at the same time.
  Mr. MacGregor: As it is the normal procedure, I intended first to speak to the Bill and deal with the resettlement grant, and then to deal with the details of the regulations when we reach them. I think that this is really a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. David Harris: My right hon. Friend has said that he is prepared to consider Members' views on the draft regulations. Can he give those of us who are former MEPs an assurance that he will examine the provision in the regulations, as they are currently drafted, that service as an MEP will not count towards the early-retirement provisions?
  Mr. MacGregor: The MEP point is in the regulations, not the Bill. I will certainly deal with it, and I want to hear the views of hon. Members before I reply to the debate on the regulations. I think that that would be the right time, because the Bill deals with other matters.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: When it was suggested that both matters should be debated together, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to cast some doubt on the position. He said that it was a matter for the Chair, but, according to my interpretation of the procedure, it should depend on the will of the House; and, judging by the early-day motion referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), there is a strong feeling in the House that the two matters should be debated together.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Perhaps I can be of assistance. The House determined that the two matters should be taken separately, but a broad-brush approach would be helpful, as it would make a wide debate possible. I am sure that it would help hon. Members on both sides of the House if the Leader of the House were able to make some progress with his speech, as we would then know his intentions.
  Mr. MacGregor: Let me make my intentions clear; then perhaps I shall be able to say something about the Bill. I intend to talk about the Bill on Second Reading, but I am aware that the issue of the resettlement grant is of great concern to the House. I suspect that that is the reason for this afternoon's sizeable attendance. I am also aware of the number of signatories to the early-day motion, and I therefore intend to talk about the matter in the current debate. It would probably be wise for me to deal separately with the many detailed points relating to the regulations; otherwise I might speak for rather a long time now, and I consider it important for hon. Members to have a chance to participate.
  I intend to go briefly through the various items in the Bill. I shall speak at greater length on the points that are of interest especially to many Opposition Members.
  Clause 1 makes changes to the statutory ex officio pensions paid to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor has been entitled to a life pension since before 1830, while Mr. Speaker's pension until 1972, granted to each retiring Speaker personally by a special Act of Parliament, dates from 1832. The statutory pension for the Prime Minister dates from 1937. The justification for these special arrangements is the recognition of the high responsibilities of the three offices. The pensions are payable not out of the parliamentary contributory pension fund but out of the Consolidated Fund.
  Arrangements for these pensions were consolidated in the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 which fixed the Prime Minister's pension at 15/40ths, Mr. Speaker's at 20/40ths and the Lord Chancellor at 17/40ths of salary. These fractions have been maintained since then whenever salaries have been increased.
  The TSRB in its 1988 report recommended that instead of the different pension ratios for each of the offices, current and future office holders should be entitled to pensions of one half of their final salary. Clause I therefore amends the 1972 Act so that the office holders all receive a common pension ratio of one half of final salary.
  Currently there is a restriction on the pensions increase that may be paid to former office holders. For example, the basic pension of a former Prime Minister is uprated under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 until it reaches the level the incumbent Prime Minister would receive if he retired. At that point the pension is capped, and a former Prime Minister is entitled to no further pensions increase unless the Prime Minister's salary rises. This penalises former Prime Ministers who have not received the annual pensions increase uprating received by all other public sector pensioners. The TSRB recommended that this restriction should be lifted and we shall be laying regulations under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to give effect to that recommendation. Taking that into account, and the previous operation of the capping restriction, we felt that we should take the opportunity in this Bill to set the pension level of all former Prime Ministers at the same
  1140
  figure as the present Prime Minister would be entitled to. Accordingly, clause 1(5) provides for this. That will be the basis on which the pension will henceforward be fully index-linked.
  Clause 2 amends the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 so that regulations may be made to permit the Prime Minister and Mr. Speaker to participate in the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The TSRB argued that there was no good reason for the exclusion and that the Prime Minister and Mr. Speaker should be given the option of participating. The TSRB concluded, however, that this participation should not operate retrospectively. The regulations will cover that point.
  Clause 3 relates the salary of the Lord Chancellor to that of the Lord Chief Justice. The House may recall that the 1983 TSRB report recommended that the Lord Chancellor should receive a slight salary lead over the Lord Chief Justice in recognition of his role as head of the judiciary. The lead was established at £2,000 and remained at that level until last year. Each increase to the Lord Chancellor's salary currently requires a Lord Chancellor's salary order which is subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. To implement the salary lead in legislation will end the need for an annual order. I am sure the House will agree that that is sensible.
  Clause 4 deals with the May 1988 TSRB recommendation that the severance payment scheme for Lords Ministers should be extended to other Ministers and paid office holders, with certain provisos. The TSRB recommended that on losing office, for whatever reason, Commons Ministers should receive a severance payment based on three months' net parliamentary income and that Ministers not in either House of Parliament should receive three months' ministerial salary—just as Lords Ministers already do. It also recommended that the two-year qualifying period for Lords Ministers should be dropped, that the Prime Minister and Mr. Speaker should be excluded from these arrangements and that the Lord Chancellor should cease to be eligible because of preferential pension arrangements.
  I believe that the justification for this will be well understood. Ministers are often required to relinquish outside appointments when they are appointed. That can often mean a substantial loss of income, in addition to a far busier working schedule.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman says that he believes that the justification for this will be easily understood. May I disabuse him of that notion? No worker in my constituency will easily understand that when a Minister gets the sack his or her salary continues for another three months while the salaries of workers who are sacked stop there and then.
  Mr. MacGregor: The TSRB recommended that and made it clear that it saw it as a severance payment scheme. That is what I believe it is.
  On leaving office a Minister faces an immediate loss of income. It will normally take time to pick up the threads of a previous career, or in other ways to build up replacement income. The TSRB believed, and the Government agree, that modest severance payments are entirely reasonable to bridge the gap.
  Clause 5 introduces a new allowance for Lords Ministers and paid office holders. For a number of years Governments have experienced difficulties in recruiting

  1141
  and retaining Ministers and paid office holders from another place. One of the main reasons why peers have been unwilling to accept office has been the adverse financial pressures which ensue.
  On appointment a Lords Minister or paid officer holder not only may suffer a fall in salary as a result of relinquishing outside appointments but he or she is also deprived of the overnight subsistence allowance that they could claim as a Back-Bench peer. At the same time most Ministers find it necessary to set up a London base, if they do not already live here, in order to meet the heavy demands of their jobs.
  Under current arrangements, Ministers and paid office holders from both sides of another place receive no assistance towards running a second home in London. This is a long-standing anomaly which we propose to remedy by the introduction of a night subsistence allowance for Lords Ministers and paid office holders. In all cases it will replace the current London supplement. We propose that the allowance will be based on the overnight element of the peers' reimbursement allowance. We propose to increase the allowance in line with the Back-Bench peers' overnight allowance by Order in Council. We believe that the introduction of this new allowance will ease significantly the difficulty we have had in recruiting and retaining Lords Ministers in recent years.
  The Bill makes no direct improvement to Members' pensions as such. These are being made by the regulations that we shall consider later this evening. However, clause 6 is of considerable relevance to Members' pension arrangements.
  The House will recall that in 1989, following the Government Actuary's report on the parliamentary contributory pension fund, the Exchequer contribution was set at 4·4 per cent. while the Member contribution remained at 9 per cent. In the pensions debate last January, the strength of feeling in the House on the issue of the balance of contributions was made very clear, and my predecessor undertook to consider in what terms the matter should be referred to the TSRB. Following consultation with the trustees, but subject to the views of the House, I have agreed the terms of reference with the trustees. They were set out in my written answer of 24 January.
  The House may find it helpful if I explain the background. Briefly, the Member contribution to the PCPF is set on the basis necessary to fund benefits over the long term, leaving aside surpluses and deficits. The Government Actuary's department, on the basis of the cost of those known benefits, values the scheme every three years. Since the Member contribution is fixed, the Government Actuary's department is able to stipulate the Exchequer contribution as a residual. The Government Actuary's department then takes account of any surplus or deficit in the fund and adjusts the Exchequer contribution accordingly to produce the rate actually paid. The effect is that the Exchequer funds deficits but, where there is a surplus, enjoys a contributions holiday. In other words, the Exchequer contribution is not a fixed item but varies, depending on the state of the fund. There is either a holiday or a reduction.
  The trustees and others, however, take the view that the character of the scheme to which the Exchequer makes contributions in this way—taking the benefit of surpluses and making good any deficits—should be changed. They argue that it is wrong that the Exchequer contribution may
  1142
  on occasion be below the Member contribution. Their preference is for a system which has a fixed relationship between the Exchequer and Member contribution—say, in the ratio of 5:3 or 60:40.
  One of the merits of the system is that Members enjoy known benefits for known contributions. If we are to make the changes that the trustees want, we need to be clear that Members' contributions would fluctuate possibly sharply and certainly unpredictably. Put simply, Members would lose the present stability and predictability of their contributions—in other words, the fixed price they enjoy for guaranteed benefits.
  Now is not the time to discuss the substance of all this but it is clearly important to make clear the Government's position, which is that we believe that the system works fairly. However, I accept that there can be different points of view. I am aware of that and have been looking into it in considerable detail. So we have agreed to refer the matter to the TSRB.
  Sir Peter Hordern: Our contribution of 9 per cent. is the highest of any privately-funded pension scheme in the country and it should never have reached that position. When my right hon. Friend refers the matter to the TSRB, will he make it clear that it is not simply a matter of wanting to alter our contribution so that there can be flexible arrangements in the future, but that 9 per cent. is too high and should never have been the position? That is what the TSRB should be investigating.
  Mr. MacGregor: I suspect that I do not have the same detailed knowledge of pension schemes elsewhere as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). I am aware of his great knowledge of them. I cannot confirm precisely whether a 9 per cent. contribution is higher than that for any other scheme in the country. If I were to say so, and then discovered that that was not the case, no doubt people would write about it. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that in my knowledge it is a high contribution in comparison with other schemes.
  Clearly, in referring this matter to the TSRB, it will be open to anyone, including the trustees, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham is a distinguished member, to make representations about the balance of contributions, the system and the points made by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Orme: May I underline the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern)? We have looked into the 9 per cent. contribution and compared it with the private and public sector. It is almost impossible to find anything comparable with our scheme. It is completely wrong. Members feel that it is a gross injustice and I hope that when the Leader of the House refers the issue to the TSRB, as he has rightly said that he will, he recommends that it looks seriously at the matter.
  Mr. MacGregor: I have already explained in a written answer the way in which we are proposing to refer this to the TSRB. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) knows that the terms of reference have already been agreed with the trustees. In fact, I made some changes to the terms of reference to incorporate recommendations of the trustees. I intend this to be a serious reference, as I do another matter that I shall come to. The TSRB will look

  1143
  at the views expressed in the debate and it will be open to the trustees and others to make their representations known.
  Sir Norman Fowler: In referring the matter to the TSRB, what view will the Government express? Will they be suggesting, as my right hon. Friend appeared to a moment ago, that this is a fair system? If they do that, I do not think that they will carry the House with them.
  Mr. MacGregor: Since the Government have put this scheme before the House, clearly we shall make clear why we did so and why we believe that the current scheme has certain merits. By referring the matter, the TSRB will be able to make up its mind about whether it wants to propose any changes. I want to make it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that I am doing so in order that the strong feelings in the House can be conveyed to the TSRB. I can go no further than that today.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I have been listening carefully to what the Lord President has had to say. He mentioned that the Government were a little fearful of the amount of finance involved in the fund. Some such things have been said in the past and the right hon. Gentleman almost said it today. The Government are more or less deciding their contribution to the pension fund and they feel that it should be smaller than it is now. Hon. Members are correct in their belief that 9 per cent. is far too high. Incidentally, during the passage of the Employment Bill I can remember the ex-Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) who is sitting below the Gangway, talking about pension funds outside the House and what workers should be doing to get into such funds. They were much better than the House of Commons fund.
  I have not yet heard the Lord President refer to the people who have to carry out the job in the pensions office across the road after we have debated and decided on the regulations and so on. They do a first-class job in very difficult circumstances.
  Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's final point and I intended to mention that later. However, I am happy to do so now.
  I do not recall saying what the hon. Gentleman attributed to me at the beginning of his intervention about the finances of the fund. The TSRB recommended the current position. The Government accepted that and clearly believe that the scheme has been fair up to now. I am aware of the depth of feeling in the House because I have consulted widely before reaching this point and those feelings are clear from the reactions in the Chamber today. Therefore, I think that we are taking the right step by referring this to the TSRB so that it can be looked at again. It will enable all those who are putting points to me now to put the same points in detail to the TSRB.
  Mr. Ray Powell: It has already been said that we did not have much of a hand in deciding that we would contribute 9 per cent. I have my salary slip, which all hon. Members will have received yesterday or today. My basic superannuation contribution is £217·28, and that is for my wife to know if no one else. With all due respect, during the
  1144
  five-week-per-month period I would be paying £43 or £44 a week and during the 10 four-week-per-month period I would be paying £52 a week. I have consulted organisations outside to see what benefits I would receive if I contributed to a private scheme. I was told that on all the benefits currently available to me as a Member of Parliament and those contained in the Bill I would receive nearly one quarter again. The TSRB should consider that anomaly. The contribution to the majority of occupational pension schemes is 4·4 per cent. by employees and 8· per cent. by employers.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern, but this is an intervention, not a speech. Is the hon. Gentleman coming to his final point?
  Mr. Powell: This is my final point. The Leader of the House mentioned 40 per cent. and 60 per cent., but he did not say who is paying 40 per cent. and who is paying 60 per cent. It is essential for us to know that.
  Mr. MacGregor: In a debate such as this, the Leader of the House is in a slightly unusual position, because he is putting forward the position not only of the Government but of those who fund some part of our pension contributions—the taxpayer. We must have a mind to that and be fair about it.
  Like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), I received a pay slip yesterday. I, too, pay a Members' contribution of 9 per cent. I am aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but we must be careful how we approach these matters, which is why it is right to ask the TSRB objectively to consider the argument that is being advanced and how outside schemes operate.
  I mentioned ratios to make a distinction between the current system and one with fixed ratios, which is the preference of the trustees. Hon. Members can put their views to the TSRB, which will then make a decision.
  Mr. John Garrett: The Minister has given an eccentric description of his job, which is why I suspect that he will not be a very good Leader of the House. His job is to represent Members of Parliament. It is the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to represent the taxpayer. In this instance, the right hon. Gentleman is not a member of the Executive but is representing the House.
  Mr. MacGregor: That is what I am doing by putting this issue to the TSRB, with a recommendation and terms of reference that have been agreed with the trustees.
  The Government will make clear what they see as some of the merits of the present system. It is perfectly clear that everyone will be entitled to put his own case. I know that the trustees will do so and hon. Members, too, will be free to put their views. It will then be for the TSRB to make recommendations. If it were to recommend a change in the present arrangements, it would then be for the Government to decide whether to put them before the House.
  If, for example, the TSRB were to recommend, and the Government were to accept, a change to a fixed relationship between the Exchequer and the Member's contribution, that would require the Leader of the House to fix the Exchequer as well as the Member's contribution. I do not have that power and it would require new primary legislation.

  1145
  I have recognised the force of the arguments—the trustrees will agree with me on this—that the parliamentary pension scheme would be unique in requiring primary legislation to make such a detailed change, and that pressures on the parliamentary timetable may delay such possibilities. Under clause 6, therefore, we shall amend the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 to enable us to make changes by regulation if we are persuaded that the system should change. The House will note that the clause is permissive, but I hope that it will agree that this will be a more satisfactory arrangement.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having achieved that clause, for which I know the trustrees were pressing? He has been able to take advantage of his more recent association with Treasury officials than mine to coerce a healthy conclusion from that redoubtable organisation. He has been assisted by the fact that hon. Members have been pressing their case on him, as they are pressing him in early-day motion 299 on resettlement allowance.
  There is a group that is not well represented in the House—about whom I have felt an uneasy conscience since the time when I held my right hon. Friend's office—on behalf of whom my former Parliamentary Private Secretary intervened a moment ago: those who have combined service as Members of the European Parliament and Members of this House. Some have served here but are now serving in Europe, and vice versa. The salaries of MEPs were fixed precisely parallel to hon. Members' salaries to ensure parity. In one respect, that does not seem to apply—the benefit that they earn at the end of their service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that point seriously. I tried to take it seriously because I felt that it was being under-represented; there are few such creatures sitting on the Benches in the House. Apart from that, I congratulate him on his success. One last heave in respect of those poor fledglings in Strasbourg would be most helpful.
  Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that that shows that 1 take seriously my responsibilities as Leader of the House and have endeavoured to achieve the right solutions.
  It would probably be best to discuss MEPs in the context of the regulations. It is rather a complex matter, as my right hon. and learned Friend will know, and I have been involved in tortuous examination of it in recent days. It might be best for me to listen to hon. Members and respond in detail later.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will the regulation be debatable?
  Mr. MacGregor: I think that the hon. Gentleman means the regulation on MEPs. Today we will be debating the draft regulations. The Government will consider the points that are made and introduce regulations later.
  The House should know that the GAD is working on the next valuation report, which is expected in the next couple of months. That will yield a new Exchequer contribution. Under the 1987 Act, any change in that contribution can come into effect only at the beginning of the financial year following publication. Thus, if the report were published in, say, late April, the new Exchequer contribution would not take effect until April 1992. My written answer suggested that the TSRB is being asked to
  1146
  report on this subject by this April. Following consultations on the practicalities of that with the chairman of the TSRB, I am persuaded that we shall have to give more time for the review to be undertaken properly. I propose that it should report as soon as possible—some time in May.
  Hon. Members' reactions have shown that it will be necessary for the TSRB to consider much evidence and many representations, and no doubt it will wish to take oral evidence. Its chairman was probably right to say that it is better not to rush the reference and for it to consider all the evidence and to relax the timetable that I proposed in my written answer.
  The important point for the House is that, even if the TSRB were to recommend change, and we accepted that, we would be in a position to take the necessary action well before April 1992. That is the important point. Ally change to the Exchequer contribution in the forthcoming report of the GAD could therefore be included in any regulations made under clause 6. I hope that that reassures the House that there is now no question of a lack of power, nor any difficulty of timing.
  I know that some hon. Members are keen that the TSRB should examine experience in other countries. As the House will have seen from my answer on 24 January, that is specifically mentioned in the letter that I shall send to the TSRB's chairman. It is only fair to warn the House, however, that because of the tight timescale I doubt that it will be possible for the TSRB to cover this aspect fully before May. That is one of the consequences that we must accept of trying to get the matter resolved as soon as possible.
  Sir Peter Hordern: My right hon. Friend said that the Government Actuary would report in April and that he would report on the state of the fund as at April or May last year. He will report solely on the relative contributions between Members of Parliament and the Exchequer. What happens when the TSRB considers not only the balance of contributions, but improved benefits, with which the House is concerned, such as the suggestion for up to two thirds for widows? What happens when the TSRB then considers those matters, and reports favourably and recommends that such improvements should be made? Will there be time for the Government Actuary to see what the improvements will cost so that, using the procedure under clause 6, the House may carry forward the recommendation that should be made by the TSRB on the improvements that may be suggested by the House?
  Mr. MacGregor: This is a complex matter, so I shall try to go through it with some care. I am anxious that the House should know the position and I do not want to mislead it. The reference to the TSRB is fundamentally on the point about the balance of contributions and whether the system should change. If the TSRB makes such a recommendation and the House accepts it, that will be a big change in the system. As a result of the timing of the next GAD report, there should be no problem about making the change, if that is what is eventually decided, in good time for April 1992 so that the automaticity of anything that the GAD report might say normally under our present arrangements would not apply. In other words, if we do not make a change in the system, there is the automatic effect of the GAD report in April 1992 under our present arrangements. I am satisfied that if we

  1147
  want to make a change under these proposals—and with the suggested timing—to the TSRB, there will be time to take that into account and that automaticity, if that is how it worked out, would not follow.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham knows well from his discussions, especially with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East on the changes to these benefits and to the benefits that we shall discuss later, that discussions also took place between the Leader of the House and the trustees. The benefit changes were agreed, and we are now putting them to the House and seeking its agreement. That process could, no doubt, continue, but it would be concurrent with and not part of the change to the overall scheme.
  I must warn, as I mentioned earlier, that every change in benefits that relates entirely to a surplus—if there is one—in the last valuation carries through. If there is a change in the valuation subsequently and the surplus disappears, those benefits will still be there, but will have to be paid for. That is where, in a fixed contribution scheme, the contributions might have to rise. I hope that I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham a clear answer.
  Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to say something now on the resettlement grant which is the subject of early-day motion 299. The House will be aware that this grant is paid directly from the House of Commons vote and has, therefore, nothing to do with the parliamentary pension fund nor, indeed, with the Bill. Hon. Members will also recall that the TSRB examined the question of the cut-off at age 65 in its last report, the recommendations of which we are now implementing, and that it recommended no changes in the resettlement grant. But the Government must obviously take very seriously an expression of such widespread concern from hon. Members of all parties. I can, therefore, tell the House that we agree that the TSRB should be invited to look again urgently at this matter.
  I shall be drawing to the TSRB's attention the strength of feeling in the House that the arguments bear re-examination, especially in view of the unique circumstances which determine the precise timing of the end of a Parliament and therefore, for some hon. Members, the end of a parliamentary career. The trustees were anxious that the TSRB should consider the matter seriously, with an open mind and in a way that ensures that the arguments can be put before it clearly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. I give the House the clear assurance that I will put the request to the TSRB on that basis.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: It is pretty obvious from the number of people here today who are aged well over 50 that they are concerned about the retirement age. Is not it a further disgraceful anomaly that an hon. Member aged 48 or 49 who has done 15 years' service in the House still gets only six months' severance pay when it is virtually impossible for him to go back to his job? This will not affect me or many of my colleagues, but it will affect Conservative Members, who could lose their seats even through a boundary change.
  The Leader of the House proposes that Ministers should receive three months' redundancy pay after having had possibly only two years in a ministerial job. They will not be unemployed because they will go back to a
  1148
  Back-Bencher's salary. In the past, many hon. Members have done 15 years and have lost their seat at the age of 48 or 49, yet they have received only six months' redundancy pay. Surely severance pay should be tied to length of service and, of course, those who serve over the age of 65 must also be considered. Length of service should be tied to severance pay as well as there being a birthday cut-off at the age of 50.
  Mr. MacGregor: There is a length of service tie-in. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it applies equally to hon. Members of all parties. I have been referring to early-day motion 299 about which the House is expressing concern. That is why I suggest that the right thing for the House to do is to refer the matter to the TSRB, expressing clearly the strength of concern and asking the TSRB to consider the matter again.
  I also recognise that there is concern that the TSRB should report as quickly as possible so that appropriate action may be taken in a timely way. I have, therefore, agreed with the TSRB that I will ask it to report separately on the resettlement grant by the middle of April. I have every reason to believe and expect that the TSRB can meet that demanding time scale. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our thanks to the TSRB for its readiness to deal with these complex and important matters—and especially with early-day motion 299—so speedily.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I declare an interest in that I should be affected by any change here and in that I am now over 70.
  When the Leader of the House talks to the TSRB, will he point out that it is no use comparing this pension scheme with a normal one? I mentioned my age. Many of my friends have now been retired for five years. Whether they were in banking, in teaching or anywhere else, they retired at a set age. They realise that a number of hon. Members are over 65 and that it is a different scene.
  Some of us may come here at a later age. Parliaments run over a four-year period. People outside sometimes get the wrong end of the stick and compare our jobs with jobs outside. That is why the magic figure of 65 has been used. Will the Leader of the House point out to the TSRB that it should look at the different nature of work here?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's point will be raised by a number of those who make representations to the TSRB. My role as Leader of the House and on behalf of the Government is to say that we shall put these points to the TSRB, and ask it to look at them seriously and in the way that I described a few moments ago. However, my personal view—as I said a moment ago—is that we are in unique circumstances and have a unique job. I agree with the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that our position is different.
  When Members of Parliament enter a new Parliament, they take a decision for themselves, but they cannot be certain when their employment will terminate. The TSRB should be asked to consider that point, which I recognise.
  I should like finally to turn to clause 7, which makes some changes to the Members' fund. This is a statutory fund, administered by trustees, which is able to offer grants to former Members of Parliament or their dependants who experience financial difficulties. It is usual to make changes to the fund from time to time.

  1149
  The House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 has in particular a hardship provision which permits the trustees,
  "for the purpose of alleviating special hardship"
  to make such
  "payments as they think fit".
  This section has not been reviewed for a long time and it seemed right to us and the trustees that we should bring the wording more up to date and, in doing so, cast the trustees' discretion more widely. Under the Bill there will now be no doubt about the trustees' discretion to act where,
  "having regard to the circumstances of the persons to … whom the payments are to be made",
  they judge it right. The decisions on what payments to make and to whom will, of course, be for the trustees alone.
  The financial implications of the Bill are small, and are contained in the explanatory and financial memorandum. I should also tell the House, however, that, under Statutory Instrument 1981/748, there is provision for the Treasury to pay to the separate Members' fund up to £215,000 per annum. Currently, £115,000 per annum is made available to that fund. It seemed right to us that, at a time when we were changing the trustees' discretion, we should make the extra £100,000 per annum available, and we propose to do so.
  All these matters have been considered extensively by the TSRB, and by the Government in discussion with the trustees and others. The measures in the Bill and in the draft regulations which we shall be considering later today together form a package with which the trustees are content. In view of the lengthy consultations, and because the beneficiaries of these modest and overdue changes include the widows of a number of colleagues who are sadly no longer with us, I hope that the House will agree to support the Bill, and that we can thereafter make rapid progress with its remaining stages. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6 pm
  Mr. Stan Orme: The Bill deals with ex-Ministers and office-holders and, to that extent, its provisions are limited. The proposals are modest, but hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that it would have been wrong to proceed with the Bill without discussing other matters affecting Members of Parliament, and those matters should therefore be dealt with this evening.
  I hope to speak only once, and it may therefore be helpful for the Leader of the House to hear the Opposition's views on the regulations with which he will deal later this evening.
  I thank the Leader of the House for the manner in which he has introduced the Bill, and I want to put on record the fact that there has been a great deal of consultation and discussion involving the trustees—not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who has played a prominent part. I represented the parliamentary Labour party in those discussions, and I know that other hon. Members have represented their respective parties. We have been trying to resolve outstanding problems regarding hon. Members' contributions and benefits under the pension scheme.
  The proposals are extremely modest—certainly when considered against the background of conditions in other
  1150
  Parliaments in Europe, the Commonwealth and the United States. It is worth putting it on record that the House of Commons turned its mind to proper provision for Members of Parliament and their dependants under a contributory scheme only in 1964. We have since had to build on that scheme. Improvements have been made, arid further improvements are contained in the Bill and the regulations. Nevertheless, in certain areas, progress has been painful and slow—not least in respect of widows arid dependants. The House has seen the tragic consequences of that in recent years.
  We welcome the improvements that have been made—and certainly some of the improvements outlined in the regulations attached to the Bill. The fact that the Leader of the House has seen fit to introduce the regulations alongside the Bill shows that he recognises the importance that hon. Members attach to the proposals. Many hon. Members have already told the right hon. Gentleman that their concern is to see justice done. We want nothing other than justice. We want what we are entitled to; we do not want anything more, and we certainly do not want anything less. That point must be made very clearly.
  The Leader of the House has told us that clause 6 provides the power for the holder of his post to make regulations altering the amount of the Exchequer's contribution to the fund. It is extremely important that that provision should be included in the Bill because, if the Top Salaries Review Body makes proposals for changing the contribution ratio, the right hon. Gentleman must have the basis on which to make those changes. The right hon. Gentleman's anticipation of that eventuality is a mark of his good will towards the House.
  We must make it clear to the TSRB that it is totally unsatisfactory to have the Treasury contribution reduced to 4·4 per cent. while Members of Parliament are now to pay 9 per cent. I gave evidence to the body when it last discussed the matter and I made that case strongly.
  At that time, of course, we did not realise that the Government Actuary would recommend 4·4 per cent. The Government Actuary has the power to re-examine the Treasury contribution. When he saw that the fund had reached a high level, he reduced that contribution to 4·4 per cent. The problem is that he has no power to examine hon. Member's contributions, and that is absolute nonsense. When I was Minister of State for Social Security, I examined pension funds and I know that the trustees of the pension fund of a large firm such as ICI would never have tolerated such a state of affairs.
  I do not think that the Top Salaries Review Body fully understood the arguments that were put on the last occasion. The body takes evidence, and it is incumbent on hon. Members to stress the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—that the employment of hon. Members is unique. I welcome the recommendations made by the Leader of the House, who has gone as far as he can in telling the TSRB to take a fresh look at the matter and come forward with proposals.
  I welcome, too, the new proposals regarding an ho n. Member who reaches maximum pension after 30 years' service and is still under the age of 65. At present, if he or she completes 30 years' service before the age of 55, he or she continues to pay full contributions between the ages of 55 and 65 and is, in effect, paying in for no gain. That is nonsense. The removal of that anomaly is welcome, and does no more than bring Members of Parliament into line

  1151
  with employees in the public and private sectors. We in this place do not take the lead in these matters; indeed, in many respects, we are lagging far behind.
  That matter is linked with the question of early retirement. At present, if hon. Members take early retirement, their pension is payable when they reach the age of 65 or when they have done 20 years' service. If the Member of Parliament is over the age of 60 at a general election, he or she can receive an immediate unabated pension. Under the proposed new arrangements, if an hon. Member retires before the age of 60, as long as the required number of years has been reached, he or she will be able to claim a pension without having to wait to attain the age of 65. That is another small, but important and long overdue, adjustment.
  Turning to widows', widowers' and children's pensions, there has been a long and protracted argument over this issue, as the Leader of the House knows only too well. There is strong feeling that the pension rights of widows and widowers should be two thirds of the allowable pension instead of one half. There have been instances—these have been put before the House on a number of occasions—of hon. Members who have died on a small pension, because they have only been here for a limited time, when the widow and family have received a pittance and have had to rely on charitable contributions from one or other side of the House. That must be rectified.
  Therefore, although the move to five eighths is a step in the right direction, I agree with the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) that that should not be the final answer. We should aim to get the TSRB to agree at some future date that it should be two thirds of the allowable pension. That is a justifiable amount, and we should press for it very strongly indeed.
  The increase in the death gratuity is overdue and very welcome. The increase is to two years of gross salary paid to the spouse of the deceased, the widow or the widower, and is back-dated to 1988. This is very welcome, but, again, it is only in line with standard practice.
  There have been untimely deaths on both sides of the House. I do not need to stress to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we have had some very bitter blows in recent months and years. We have seen families riven by grief because of the untimely deaths of younger Members of the House.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I think it is worth while putting it on the record that widows have to put up not only with their grief but also sometimes with the intrusion of the press and the rest of the media trying to find out who the successor to the seat will be. They often also have to see their late husband's photographs on television just when they are trying to get over a terrible grief.
  Mr. Orme: That is one of the extra burdens that one has to bear if one is a Member of the House.
  We very much welcome the fact that this recommendation is to be implemented.
  I want to deal very briefly with the question of the regulations for future Members of the European Parliament, who will be able to transfer their pension rights from the European Parliament scheme to the House of Commons scheme, where they will be counted as added years. That is very much welcomed. However, those hon.
  1152
  Members who serve in the House and who have previously served in the European Parliament feel very aggrieved that the proposed new scheme does not apply to them. Will the Minister take a further look at this issue?
  A similar situation should also appertain when an hon. Member becomes a Member of the European Parliament. It should be reciprocal. The MEPs are not asking for anything different. They pay to the pension scheme within the European Parliament, and they are on the same salary as we are. All they are asking is that, when they transfer that money, it should be counted as added years. This is a small but, I think, justifiable point.
  Speeches tonight have shown how strongly we feel on the resettlement grant. Hon. Members feel that there is a great deal of injustice here. The resettlement grant is for Members who have left the House of Commons, to allow them to make modest adjustments in their home and living conditions. With a cut-off age of 65, it has become a lottery whether one's birthday falls just before a general election or just after it. There are a number of examples of hon. Members who have missed this by a very short period, even days, and also of hon. Members who have gained. As we have no fixed dates for general elections but are dependent on when the Government, irrespective of what party forms the Government, call an election, the unfairness is aggravated.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I agree whole-heartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. On the question of hon. Members who gain, is he aware of the case of one of our colleagues, no longer in the House, who was consulted by Prime Ministers as to the date of an election? He was in a difficult position, because whatever advice he gave would benefit or disadvantage him. That shows the absurdity of the present system.
  Mr. Orme: That is true, and the lottery must be removed. There is a justifiable case. As the House knows, and as the Leader of the House has acknowledged, 351 hon. Members have signed a motion to this effect. They feel extremely strongly about it. It is worth putting it on record that only a small number of hon. Members are involved, but the injustice is seen as great.
  I therefore welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has referred this to the TSRB in as strong language as it is possible for him to use at this stage. I hope that he will impress on the TSRB the fact that hon. Members see this as a matter of natural justice and that it is important that we have a reply as soon as possible, so that any proposals can be implemented before the next general election.
  I believe, therefore, that the proposals before us this evening—limited, modest, but important—are a step in the right direction. It is not the end of the problem; we have not resolved all the outstanding issues; but certainly we are making progress. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill and the regulations this evening.
  6.16 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: Pensions are an acquired taste. I remember that when the state earnings-related pension scheme was introduced in 1975 there were only about a dozen hon. Members present in the House. I mention that to make two points. First, pensions policy generally has been a long-standing interest

  1153
  of mine—and it is not just my own pension that I am interested in. Secondly, I speak as one of a select band of ex-Thatcher-Cabinet Members who are not retiring at the next election.
  A flicker of suspicion crosses my mind when a Government put on a Bill such as this late on a Thursday, with private business at 7 o'clock, and in the middle of a war. My fears are semi-allayed by what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said. I support entirely what he says about settlement grants, but I am bound to say that I am less than overwhelmed by the arguments for severance payments for Ministers.
  I suppose that publicly the most controversial part of this Bill is clause 1, which gives half-pay pensions to anyone who reaches, for however short a period, the position of Prime Minister, Speaker or Lord Chancellor. I would not oppose that. It follows precedent, as my right hon. Friend has said. These offices have been treated differently previously, and this proposal manages to rationalise the position. It is generous, but, as far as those offices are concerned, justifiable.
  My concern is the contrast with the positions of other Ministers and the position of hon. Members generally. To take the Ministers first, the Lord Chancellor's is an important post but not, perhaps, the most dominating post in the Cabinet. Others have more influence: Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, deputy Prime Minister, Home Secretary—posts of that kind. They are covered by the supplementary ministerial pensions scheme. Estimates are difficult, but it would take a Cabinet Minister of that kind, or indeed any other Cabinet Minister, about 20 years of service in the Cabinet to reach a half-pay pension. It is hardly necessary for me to say that not many hon. Members, in our experience, serve 20 years in the Cabinet.
  What about a Member of Parliament? Under our provisions, it would take him 25 years to reach a half-pay pension, and that is on the new basis of accruals of one fiftieth rather than the old basis of one sixtieth. Of course, that came into being only in 1983. Most hon. Members will be covered by most of the one-sixtieth provision, and only partly covered by the one-eightieth provision.
  Whatever else, I do not believe that Ministers and Members of Parliament generally can be attacked for having unbelievably generous pension arrangements, but what really sticks in the throat is the basis upon which those pensions are financed—the reason for clause 6. The Member scheme is a funded scheme. That means contributions from Members and from the Treasury. It used to be the case that the Treasury contributed 18 per cent. and Members contributed 9 per cent. However, over the past few years, like every other funded scheme in the country, there has been a good surplus. That has resulted in Members' contributions remaining at 9 per cent. but the Treasury's contribution going down from 18 per cent. to 4·4 per cent.
  I remember something about Government being a model employer. The Government have taken a pension holiday which is extremely difficult to justify. I do not believe that it can be justified, nor do I believe that that is the sort of thing that the Government should be about in terms of pensions policy. Their case is that the 4·4 per cent. is what the Government Actuary says is necessary to finance and fund the scheme. That may be true as an actuarial calculation, but it does not mean for one moment that we should believe that everything within the scheme now is desirable or cannot be improved. For example, the
  1154
  position of widows could be improved, to the benefit of everyone concerned. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take on board what I detect to be the feeling on that subject, particularly in respect of widows. Changes in the financing of the scheme are urgently required. The position until now has been rather shabby and not something in which the Government should be involved.
  Obviously, I welcome clause 6. I would welcome it even more if my right hon. Friend would go a little further in what he sets out as the Government's policy and the evidence that he will give to the TSRB. I am delighted to know about his powers to do that, but I should be interested to know even more about the matter. However, clause 6 allows the Leader of the House, with the consent of the Treasury, to make provision for determining the Exchequer contribution. It calls for consultations with the trustees. Again, that is obviously an important thing to do. Also, it calls for consultations with persons appearing to the Leader of the House of Commons to represent persons likely to be affected by the regulations on which he has consulted, other than the trustees themselves. Again, that is an important point.
  Not everyone will want to be in the House of Commons scheme. There are now new pension options. For example, there are personal pensions, which in many ways were designed for people who might change jobs. Someone who enters the House with a majority of 300—I do not care on what side of the House—is not necessarily going to look forward to 30 years' uninterrupted service on the Benches of the House of Commons. It is important that the position of personal pensions is understood.
  What does a generous Exchequer do? Of course, it pays the national insurance contribution that is required by law, but, apart from that, as the employer it makes no extra contribution whatsoever. The Treasury's touching support for the Government's policy of extending choice in pensions is to do the absolute minimum that the law allows. In other words, it does absolutely nothing. The Treasury needs to be made aware of that point and to understand that the law has changed, even if some of the views upon it may not have done so.
  The trustees are concerned first and foremost about the fund, and that is right. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House must take into account other interests as well. He really must impress upon the Treasury and upon his colleagues the fact that there are now new options, that the law has changed, and that hon. Members may want to exercise those options, just as much as people outside would wish to do so.
  The Bill is rather incomplete. It deals with some problems but ignores others. It should be recognised that Members of Parliament have a right to good and sensible pension arrangements made for them, and, above all, that we do not allow the Treasury to rule the scheme. That would be disastrous. A few years ago, I carried out a national review of pension arrangements. I hope that my right hon. Friend will conduct his own review of pensions for Ministers and Members of Parliament. There is a great deal left to improve in our system.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: After that withering criticism of the Treasury, I rise to speak as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. In that capacity, the House will

  1155
  expect me to give the views of the trustees on the Government's proposals as set out in the Bill. As trustees, selected by right hon. and hon. Members as a whole to manage the fund, my colleagues and I, from both sides of the House, try our best to improve its provisions in the interests both of hon. Members, past and present, and their dependants. We have taken a leading role in securing many improvements in the scheme over the years, including a faster accrual rate, the age—service conditions for early retirement at a general election, and the provision for ill-health retirement pensions.
  As I made clear in our last debate on parliamentary pensions on 17 January 1990, however, there remained a very strong case for further improvements. This debate, more than a year later, breaks all known records for frequency of postponement and, regrettably, although the Bill provides for some improvements long advocated by the trustees, it does not meet all our aims—in particular, our very strongly held view that the scheme will remain most seriously flawed until the injustice of a Member's contribution of 9 per cent., compared with one from the Treasury of only 4·4 per cent., is redressed.
  Anyone who thinks that the House of Commons puts the interests of hon. Members first should look at that comparison and the failure, over a protracted period, to bring it more into line with the average of contributions paid by employees and employers in occupational pension schemes generally. According to the latest survey I have of occupational pension schemes, by the National Association of Pension Funds, employees in the United Kingdom contribute 4·4 per cent. towards the cost of their pensions and employers 8·8 per cent. So in the United Kingdom as a whole, employers pay twice as much as employees whereas, in our scheme, hon. Members pay more than twice as much as the Treasury.
  I must remind right hon. and hon. Members that the initial steps towards the improvements for which the Leader of the House is now providing were taken as long ago as May 1987, when we debated the Bill which became the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987. That Act allowed for the amendment of the rules governing Members' pension arrangements by secondary legislation. Draft regulations under the 1987 Act will be considered later this evening in relation to the TSRB's latest report. However, we still await consolidated regulations, which is a matter that I raised with the Leader of the House for the trustees at a recent meeting with him.
  In the debate on the Second Reading of the 1987 Act, strong pressure was exerted by Members, notably on the rate of their contributions and the level of benefits. In consequence, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), agreed to refer the parliamentary contributory pension fund to the Top Salaries Review Body, as reported in the Official Report of 24 July 1987, column 502. The TSRB's report was published in May 1988, since when the trustees of the fund have discussed them, at innumerable meetings, with three successive Leaders of the House: the right hon. Members for Colchester, South and Maldon, for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) and for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor).
  With all of them, the trustees pressed the claims which were set out to the House in my speech of 17 January 1990.
  1156
  I know that all three right hon. Members sought and, indeed, helped to close the gap between us, and that the Bill that we are debating would have been much less satisfactory but for their efforts. It must be emphasised that the present Leader, within days of his appointment, made plain his readiness to help in every way possible and that at least one important change to the Bill, as originally drafted, owes a very great deal to his responsive attitude to our representations.
  The Bill now includes a clause which will enable the House to express an opinion and, indeed, to reject any proposal by the Leader to vary the Exchequer-Member contribution ratio which appears unreasonable to the House. The clause does not guarantee a debate. The House will be unable to act unless the Leader tables a proposal and I hope very much that he will go as far as he possibly can in this debate to assure us that it will be his firm purpose, and must also be that of his successors, to provide parliamentary time on an amendable motion to enable the House to state its views whenever the interests of Members are affected by any question on which he can act by making a proposal under the clause. Not to do so will merely increase dissatisfaction with the present imbalance as between ministerial and parliamentary control over the scheme. For the moment, however, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for going further in this matter than any of his predecessors were able to go.
  Mr. Ray Powell: I am rather concerned about the TSRB and its responsibility. Can my right hon. Friend satisfy me and other right hon. and hon. Members that, if the TSRB rejected what the House suggested to it, the avenue open to hon. Members, particularly on resettlement grant, would be to take action in the House by a majority of the House—351 hon. Members out of 650 who could attend the House and sign an early-day motion, perhaps excluding Ministers and a few others—appending their signatures to an early-day motion? At least, if the TSRB rejected our suggestion, we could take action. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and others that that will be possible?
  Mr. Morris: Ultimately the power to decide rests with this House. The Treasury has enormous control over Ministers, yet we need help from them. Further to my hon. Friend's comments, I must tell the Leader of the House that I believe the pressure for change as far as resettlement grant is concerned is now becoming totally irresistible.
  Very clearly, as I know the right hon. Gentleman accepts, it would have been preferable if the regulations on the Order Paper could have been laid before now, but I have been given assurances, which are reflected in the regulations, that some of the improvements and amendments for which they provide will apply as if they had been laid when they were first agreed between Leaders of the House and the trustees.
  In the debate on 17 January 1990, there was wide support for improving the benefits of the scheme. At the same time, concern was again expressed about the Exchequer-Member contribution ratio. That concern was reinforced by the publication of the Government Actuary's report on the valuation of the fund as at 31 March 1987, showing a surplus of £7·4 million. Today there is even stronger feeling, as I hear daily from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, that urgent action must be taken to redress the balance. What

  1157
  the Bill demonstrates is that the trustees' representations to successive Leaders of the House have produced some improvements in benefits, not least for widows, and in the pace of progress towards a more acceptable balance between Members' and Exchequer contributions to the Fund.
  While I must again emphasise that we have not achieved all that we had hoped for, Members will see that there are real improvements in the Bill. If the trustees had been the sole arbiters, these improvements would have been at once more substantial and of quicker effect; but the House must recognise that the extent of our power to change the scheme is limited. As of now, we have the power to recommend, but not the authority to act executively, in relation either to benefits or the level of contributions to the scheme. That basically is why the parliamentary scheme still compares unfavourably with others in terms of the proportion of the scheme's costs paid for by its Members and of the benefits that it provides.
  One of the most important changes provided for by the Bill is the increase in the rate of pensions payable to widows to five eighths, rather than the current half rate. It is less than the two thirds that the trustees argued for. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step forward. As the Leader of the House knows, under the current Inland Revenue rules, the maximum widow's pension that may be paid is two thirds of her husband's pension. The trustees asked that the surplus in the fund, shown by the Actuary's report, should be used to increase the widow's pension to the rate acceptable to the Inland Revenue. We won only half a loaf, however, and I give notice now that there will be further strong pressure for a two-thirds widow's pension.
  Anyone who thinks that such pressure is uncalled for should look at some of the pensions now in payment to the widows of former Members of Parliament. At his death in 1984, the widow of a former colleague, and very close friend of mine, with total service of some 20 years, was entitled to barely £50 a week. That is but one example of the way in which the widows of former Members have fared and why Sir Anthony Kershaw, formerly the Member for Stroud, said here on 27 April 1987:
  "It is an absolute disgrace that this should be tolerated … even to speak of it ought to give one a sense of shock."—[Official Report, 28 April 1987; Vol. 115, c. 104.]
  Some of the regulations on the Order Paper will apply with effect from 6 April 1988. In one case, the effect will be to provide an increase in benefit for widows or widowers of hon. Members who have died since that time. It will be clear to hon. Members that a large number of widows and dependants will not, however, benefit from the rise, including the widow of my colleague and friend who died in 1984.
  To help in meeting the problems that can arise, I am glad the Government have agreed that measures may be taken, under the extension of the Members' Fund Acts, to allow the trustees to relieve any hardship for widows or widowers who lost their husbands or wives before April 1988. The trustees have been told that the question of retrospection is difficult. We accept that it is clearly logical to have April 1988 as the date of automatic entitlement to the higher pension of five eighths, but the possibility of any extra help for those whose husbands died before then will become available only after regulations to amend the Members' Fund Acts have come into force. The House will
  1158
  know that I speak in the debate also as chairman of the managing trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund.
  In relation to other improvements, I turn to one for which the trustees have pressed for some years: to allow Members to cease payment of contributions when entitlement to a maximum pension of two thirds of salary has been achieved. Members in this position now have to continue paying a 9 per cent. contribution without gaining any increase in their pension rights. Happily the regulations referred to on the Order Paper now provide for them to retain a notional holding within the fund without the deduction of further contributions, so the wholly reasonable case made by the trustees is now conceded. On a technical but important point, I must also thank the Leader of the House for including the necessary powers to allow the trustees formally to appoint investment agents, as required under the Financial Services Act 1986.
  Further improvements, which result from pressure by the trustees and recommendations contained in the 26th report of the TSRB, include an increase in the death-in-service gratuity from one year's salary to twice the annual salary of a Member. I am naturally very glad to note that, in keeping with the trustees' request, this will be backdated to 1 May 1988, thus covering all deaths in service during the present Parliament, of which there has been a tragic number.
  There are also improvements in the Bill for the provision of pensions on early retirement. Under the present system, the entitlement is determined at the point at which the Member leaves the House. There is then a sharp cut-off so that, for example, a Member with 20 years' service, who leaves just before his or her 60th birthday, is under severe disadvantage compared to one who leaves just after the age of 60. The new arrangements provide much more flexibility; and I commend them to Members on behalf of the trustees.
  The regulations on this will also allow for service in the European Parliament to count towards the qualifying period. Here I need to ask the Leader of the House, on behalf of the trustees, if he can give any assurance that the change will be reciprocated in the parallel European parliamentary scheme. I fully understand the concern of former MEPs who feel that they are seriously disadvantaged by the Government's decision not to make retrospective the provision for counting their service as MEPs in relation to early retirement. The trustees have had many and strong representations from former MEPs on this vexed issue. We played our part in ensuring that they were drawn urgently to the attention of successive Leaders of the House. We did not, however, and do not now, have the power of decision in the matter; and, as the House knows, the Government, in holding the line against retrospection, feel that they cannot go, as it were, the extra mile.
  I stress again also my understanding, and that of my fellow trustees, of the extent of feeling, in all parts of the House, about the serious imbalance between Members' contributions to the fund and those of the Exchequer. The mechanism for determining what is paid into the fund, agreed as long ago as 1972, was essentially to ensure that the Member's contribution would be fixed and the Exchequer's contribution would vary in such a way as to keep the fund at a viable level to meet its pension liabilities.
  What this means in practice is that when, as a result of good management by the trustees, the assets of the fund

  1159
  increase, the Exchequer contribution is decreased and the Treasury benefits rather than Members or pensioners. The absurd situation has now been reached whereby, I repeat, Members contribute over twice as much as the Exchequer to the fund, while outside the House the average employer pays twice as much as the employee to his occupational pension scheme.
  Some aspects of the Bill are outside the responsibilities of the trustees: for example, severance pay for Ministers. That innovation stems from a recommendation by the TSRB on which the Government have resolved to act in the interests of right hon. and hon. Members who lose ministerial office. Another issue that is outside the trustees' terms of reference is that of the resettlement grant, to which both my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and the Leader of the House referred, for Members who lose their seats or otherwise leave Parliament at a general election. I am, of course, aware of how resentful Members are about the manifest inequities of the present rules for payment of the grant. Indeed, as the House knows, I sought recently to reflect the strength of feeling on the issue by tabling a motion which attracted 336 signatories, a clear majority of the House, on the day it was tabled.
  It was more than a modest start, but the motion now has still more signatories, from both sides of the House, and I have had numerous messages from Members, not least Conservative Members, who would have signed had they not been inhibited from doing so by the offices they hold. Thus the number of signatories of the motion, huge and unprecedented though it may be, is well below the total support for its purposes.
  The grant is not, of course, a severance payment or one for redundancy. As its name says, it is a resettlement grant, for people with two places of work when they retire from the House. As of now, there is a pot luck element in the rules for the grant. One former Cabinet Minister received the grant—a year's salary—because the last general election was called just before his 65th birthday, while others less fortunate, but some with over 30 years' service, received nothing because they were just over 65.
  The motion would make the grant payable, subject to a minimum length of service rule, unless the Member stands for election after his or her 65th birthday. There is also provision for payment, at any age, to Members with long service to the House. This is in recognition of the resettlement problems of Members with long service, many of whom have to uproot from their homes because they can no longer afford to live in London on their incomes as pensioners.
  I remind the House that there has been only one general election since the rules were made, and that it was not until afterwards that the inequities of the rules became apparent. The grant is, however, payable from the Consolidated Fund, not from the parliamentary pension scheme, and it will be for the House to remove, as I hope it very soon will, the undoubted injustices which its Members see in the current rules.
  To conclude, I place on record, on behalf of the trustees, and indeed all Members and their dependants, our warmly renewed appreciation of the quiet and often unseen but painstaking and always caring work of Jim Dobson, Tony Lewis and all who help to administer the
  1160
  scheme. They go far beyond the calls of duty in the service they provide, and they deserve the gratitude of the House as a whole.
  6.47 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: As a trustee of the fund, I am grateful for the hard work which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has done as chairman, on behalf of the House. Thanks to the extent and comprehensive nature of his remarks, there are many matters on which I shall not have to follow him.
  I should like to stress one point at the start. There may be some outside the House who believe that we are discussing improvements in benefit for which the taxpayer will have to pay. It is important to stress that ours is a funded scheme, which means that we make contributions to it and that improvements in benefit come from improvements to the fund and its performance. That is unlike the great majority of public sector schemes which are wholly funded by the taxpayer. Indeed, the measures which we are discussing will result in a smaller contribution from the taxpayer than has been the case in the past. I make no apology for saying that the benefits which we are considering are in themselves not only worthy but arise from the efforts of the fund and those who manage it to secure better benefits, which we fully deserve.
  For that reason, however, I do not think it right to compare our scheme and the benefits which we have as Members of Parliament with schemes in other countries, tempting though it would be to do so, because I believe that those schemes are generally funded by taxpayers who must take the responsibility for them. But if ours is to remain a funded scheme, which it should, we must expect the benefits that flow from it and no others.
  It would not be right for us to recommend and carry into being improvements in our own scheme. They must be sent to the TSRB which, after careful consideration and having made its recommendations, should allow the Leader of the House to bring them before the House, as is proposed in clause 6.
  These matters have been referred to the TSRB in the past and on three separate occasions they have suggested that the contributions made should be in the proportion of three eighths from Members and five eighths from Government. I see no reason why that proportion should ever have been altered. It was only because the TSRB understood it to be the wish of the House that we should make a contribution of 9 per cent. I do not wish to go into the antecedents of that decision. Apart from anything else, I do not have the time. I say only that it was a scratched-up deal done rather late at night and most unworthy of us. I hope that, when the TSRB looks at the matter again, it will forget that 9 per cent. and look at the matter squarely on its merits, as should be the case.
  As a result of that, not only do we pay 9·9 per cent., but the Government contribution, because of the health of the fund and the way in which it has performed, has been reduced to 4·4 per cent.—somewhat less than half the rate that Members contribute. That is the case not just for one or two years—many schemes in the private sector take a contributions holiday for a year or two. This idea is to have 4·4 per cent. for no fewer than eight years while we continue to pay double. That is a most extraordinary state of affairs which must be addressed carefully. It simply

  1161
  cannot be right. Therefore, it has been arranged—I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on doing so—that the TSRB will recommend whatever the appropriate contribution should be. In my opinion, our contribution should be nearer 6 per cent. at most and the Treasury's 8 per cent., rising to 14 per cent. in seven years' time.
  However, there is now a new factor in the equation because there is to be a new valuation of the assets in the fund as at June last year. That valuation should show a further substantial surplus and, because the Government Actuary has no power to do anything else, we might have to say that because of that substantial surplus the Treasury contribution should be reduced to nothing while we continue to pay 9 per cent. I dare say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would have your support in saying that that arrangement would be unacceptable. Therefore, it is not enough simply to say what the balance of contribution might be. The TSRB should also look carefully at what further improvements might be made in our fund, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said.
  One of the things that we considered was widows' pensions. We originally proposed two thirds, which is the proportion paid in many private sector schemes, to be paid to widows in future. But if we were to get anything it was to be five eighths or nothing, so we had to accept five eighths.
  The TSRB should have looked at benefits in other funded schemes in the public sector. For example, teachers have favourable arrangements for early retirement and British Airways has a three-year salary payment rather than two for death in service.
  I understand that the TSRB has been asked to look only at the level of contributions, but as the Government Actuary can look only at the state of the fund as at June 1990 and report this summer on what should be done, there will be time for the Government to consider the TSRB report on contributions. We could use clause 6 to carry that into effect. Surely it would be better if the TSRB were to take evidence from Members about desirable improvements, such as widows' pensions. It is, after all, nearly three years since the TSRB last reported and it will be aware of the defects in our scheme compared with other funded schemes. It will also be aware of the lack of balance in our contributions and the resources available to us.
  Therefore, I propose that after the Government Actuary recommends what the contributions should be in order to provide existing and proposed benefits, the TSRB should come forward with further recommendations before the end of the year which the Government Actuary could then calculate and quantify. That would be in time for the Government to carry the proposals into effect under clause 6 before June 1992.
  The House will know that under clause 6 the Leader of the House may, with the consent of the Treasury, by regulations, make provision for the benefits here. I do not understand why the Treasury—
  Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it the case that if the debate concludes at 7 o'clock, we do not have to come back at 10 o'clock, but that if it does not conclude at 7 o'clock, we may have to come back at 10 o'clock?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): What the hon. Gentleman does this evening is a matter for him.
  Sir Peter Hordern: I am just coming to the end of my remarks and I hope that the House will be patient. I am, after all, a trustee of the fund. This is a bad deal and it is quite wrong that we should have only an hour and a half in which to debate it. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am going to have my say.
  I do not understand why the Treasury should be mentioned specifically under clause 6. It is bound to take a view anyway. The Treasury is getting off lightly, through no merit of its own. It has nothing to do with the success of the fund. If the trustees had wanted to, we could have invested all the money in Government securities, and where would the Treasury have been then? It must distinguish between the pay-as-you-go schemes and the funded schemes. A period of silence and modesty on the part of the Treasury would be welcome. Its part in all this has been distinctly shabby. I am astonished that the Treasury has had the nerve in clause 6 to show its head above the parapet. If that had happened in the private sector, the Treasury would have been castigated as a bad employer.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on bringing the Bill to the House and I wish him every success.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for the way in which the Bill has been received. Several of those who have spoken have great experience in these matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was a distinguished Minister and a key architect of the personal pension scheme. I have no doubt that he will mount a powerful case to the TSRB along the lines that he put to the House tonight.
  I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for all that he does as chairman of the trustees. He does a tremendous amount of work on matters of detail, as well as on the kind of things he has been talking about this evening.
  There is a general feeling that the Bill should now go ahead so that we can get on with it. It has been long delayed. As hon. Members have said, it is comparatively modest, but it is right that it should be enacted. Therefore, I hope that we can now reach a conclusion on the Bill.
  Some issues that have been raised during the debate are more relevant to the regulations—particularly the point regarding Members of the European Parliament, to which we may have time to return later. It is not a simple point that can be dealt with quickly, but it is one that I am considering. However, there are real complexities which we may be able to discuss later.
  I said a great deal in my opening remarks and I now recommend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Peter Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the debate can continue after 10 o'clock. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) that an hour and a half is a ridiculous amount of time to debate such an important matter. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we allow the Bill to go forward, can the debate on the motion continue after 10 o'clock? I do not wish to delay the House, but I do wish to talk on the motion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Wood.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  MINISTERIAL AND OTHER PENSIONS AND SALARIES BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved.
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund or the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums required to be so charged or paid under that Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so charged or payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Mr. Peter Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take it that if the opposed private business should end early the motion will be debated immediately afterwards?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman may certainly take that to be the position. However, on present form, I am not sure how likely it is. If the situation should arise, I will bear the hon. Gentleman's interest in mind.

Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
7 pm
Mr. John Garrett: The motion is simple and straightforward. Its purpose is to revive the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill so that it may receive further and detailed consideration in this House. It is not the purpose of tonight's debate to rehearse the principles or the detailed substance of the Bill; the proper time for that is the Second Reading debate and later stages. I do not intend to take up the valuable time of the House in an attempt to discuss the merits of the Bill. I am sure that I should be ruled out of order were I to do so.
The only question raised by this revival motion is whether the Bill should have an opportunity to resume its passage through Parliament, whether its contents are sufficiently important to the city of Southampton to justify the parliamentary and public scrutiny of a Second Reading debate and, should the Bill be given a Second Reading, to justify Committee consideration of petitions on it. The Bill was given lengthy consideration in another place.
The city of Southampton faces a period of rapid growth, resulting in pressures on its transport infrastructure and in unprecedented economic development. The rapid transit project that the city council is promoting by way of this Bill has been judged, after extensive study and consultation, to be the best way of meeting the changing transport needs of Southampton in a period of scarce public resources. On two occasions this judgment has been confirmed by a two-to-one majority on the city council, all parties having been given the opportunity of a free vote.
The city council has had to bring a private Bill before Parliament simply because a rapid transit system of the type proposed counts, in parliamentary terms, as requiring authority for a private Bill, just as railway Bills do. I regard this procedure as thoroughly outmoded, and I welcome

1165
Governmemt proposals to change it so that non-parliamentary means may be found to deal with such matters. In any case, we owe it to the city of Southampton to give the matter further consideration.
The scope of the Bill is very specific. It authorises its promoter—the city council—to build a 4·4 km rapid transit system round the city centre. It involves the construction of a largely elevated track or guideway, segregated from all other means of transport, on which would travel electrically powered vehicles running on rubber tyres. The Bill includes power to acquire land by compulsory purchase, within defined limits of deviation of the route; to franchise the system out; to form a company; and to dispose of the system.
Southampton's is not the only Bill proposing a rapid transit or light rail solution to local transport problems to have come before the House. Such ventures are appearing increasingly around the country as transport authorities look for fuel-efficient and cost-efficient ways of addressing modern travel needs and their economic and environmental implications.
Sir Anthony Grant: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am an East Anglian Member, not a Southampton Member. He may be aware that the city of Cambridge probably has greater transport and traffic problems than Southampton and the rest of the south coast put together. A rapid transit system has been mooted for Cambridge. All sorts of solutions are being put forward. However, the authorities in Cambridgeshire are concerned that there should be complete unanimity of opinion about such a dramatic change. Is there unanimity in Southampton?
Mr. Garrett: I hope that I shall be able, in the Second Reading debate, to deal at length with that point. All that we want at the moment is the revival of the Bill so that it may receive a Second Reading. If there is to be a test of the strength of the opposition to it, no doubt that will take place at later stages. This motion is very specific.
The emergence of stringent environmental criteria for such schemes is a point which I believe is not lost on the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. James Hill: I fully agree that this is a procedural motion. However, this is the first chance the House has had to look into some of the imperfections of this system. It is only right that we should be allowed to broaden the debate. Unless the reasons are given, how can we decide whether the Bill should be revived? We cannot just have an empty debate. I suppose that we could simply go home in 30 seconds without discussing this terrible Bill at all.
Mr. Garrett: The hon. Gentleman flatters me. His remarks should have been addressed to the Chair. I did not say that this was a procedural motion; it was you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who said so—and quite rightly. If the hon. Gentleman wants to refer at great length to the merits of the Bill, it is up to him to try. I am sure that you, Sir, will give him guidance as to whether he is in order.
Hon. Members will know of such other projects as the Midland Metro and ones in Manchester, Avon, Sheffield and South Yorkshire. Many more are expected, and the Minister gave notice of these when, on 18 December 1990, he presented evidence to the inquiry of the Select Committee on Transport into light rail systems.
Mr. Peter Fry: As a member of the Select Committee, I can tell the House that we have not yet published our report. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of schemes likely to meet the present requirements is very small? Southampton, at first sight, does not seem to be one of them. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this procedure should go ahead? It is the money of many community charge payers in Southampton that will promote this Bill and, in so doing, push a scheme that is very unlikely to come to fruition.
Mr. Garrett: I look foward to reading the Select Committee's report so that I may compare its criteria with the characteristics of this proposed system. As to whether the legislation should be proceeded with, presumably the House will make its decision tonight.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, the Minister said that another half dozen schemes might be in operation before the end of the century. Successive Transport Ministers in the present Government have welcomed such schemes.
The route proposed in the Bill aims to link the major features of the city and to connect existing public transport facilities—the railway, ferries, the bus station, coach transport facilities and the majority of car parks.
Mr. Tim Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garrett: Not for the moment.
Twelve stops are to be provided, including the Pirelli site, Ocean Village, about three quarters of a mile of Associated British Ports land in various stages of development, and the Woolworths site. The scheme that the Bill proposes is intended to ease existing and future traffic congestion in Southampton city centre at a time when the city is poised to shift from a port-based economy to become a major south coast regional centre.
The service will be safe, reliable, quiet, frequent and easily extendable, subject to further authorisation. Some of the content of the Bill is concerned with the provisions for future funding of the scheme. It is a marriage of public initiative and public funding, and the Bill makes specific provision for the system to be franchised out.
Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garrett: In a minute.
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have some experience of dealing with private Bills. You, Sir, will recall that when I moved a motion of this sort last year, the Opposition, quite rightly, expected me to give way to enable hon. Members to ask questions on matters about which they were concerned. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should adopt such an attitude, because on that previous occasion the Opposition expected me—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter is not one for me to consider.
Mr. Garrett: You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I gave way on almost every other sentence at the start of my brief speech, but now I want to make a little progress.
The scheme will not be owned by the city council. Southampton made it clear that if money cannot be raised from the private sector, the project will not proceed.

1167
However, the council believes that private funding is available, and that in the current financial climate it is the best way to ensure that the city centre gets the extra transport capacity that it needs.
Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. David Ashby rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Garrett: Where was I? The council believes that private funding is the best way of ensuring, in the present financial climate, that the city gets the extra transport capacity that it needs in the shortest possible time scale.
Mr. Ashby: As this is a revival motion, the House should consider what prospect the project has of being successful. I heard that no interest whatsoever has been expressed by private sources in funding the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman emphasised that private funding is the most necessary ingredient, can he say who is prepared to finance the project? All the information that we have suggests that no interest in funding has been expressed by the private sector.
Mr. Garrett: I will deal with that later. However, the city council has made it clear that if the money cannot be raised from the private sector, it will not proceed.
Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garrett: I am still attempting to answer the previous intervention.
At present, the city council has received support from a large number of major public companies, in terms of raising funds for the project's next stage.
Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman is trying to mislead the House in his attempt to persuade right hon. and hon. Members that the city council has given some form of guarantee that there will be no public sector funding. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) wants to intervene—although I suppose that he cannot intervene in an intervention—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the undesirability of sedentary noise.
Mr. Janman: The hon. Member for Bradford, South may be able to make his points later, in a long speech of the kind that he usually makes.
When the city council gave evidence to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the other place, it refused to agree to a guarantee being written into the Bill that no public funding—either from Southampton community charge payers or any other source—would be used. As a former resident of the city, I may add that the word of Southampton's Labour city council is worthless, in respect of not only this but any other matter.
Mr. Garrett: The scheme will not proceed unless it can be financed from the private sector. The city council is currently in discussions with a large number of companies, which have expressed interest in contributing their money to the next stage of the project.
Mr. Michael Colvin: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene, he may find my
1168
remarks helpful—but they may worry some of my hon. Friends who are against the Bill. As this is an enabling measure, is it not impossible to detect how interested investors may be in the project until a prospectus is available? That cannot be done until the Bill has progressed. Finance is at the heart of whether or not the enabling motion is passed.
Mr. Garrett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful contribution. He is quite right—and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will observe that I have tried to stay within the rules of order in referring only to the worth of the Bill.
The Bill was deposited in the other place in November 1988 and it received its Second Reading on 13 April 1989. By the time that the Bill was considered by an Opposed Bill Committee between 30 October and 13 November 1989, the number of outstanding petitions was reduced from 16 to five. The city council agreed to accommodate concerns raised by petitioners and the Committee.
The Committee looked at every aspect of the scheme in detail, and its members spent a day in Southampton looking at the route, as well as listening to seven full days of evidence. It considered a very full range of issues, including external and environmental impact, efficacy of easing traffic congestion, the effect on trees, parks and open spaces, details of proposed funding and the benefits and advantages of the chosen Briway system.
Only two small changes were made in Committee—one proposed by the Bill's promoters to safeguard parkland, and the other a small rerouting proposal by the Lords Committee.
Immediately afterwards, Parliament did not agree the carry-over of Bills in the Session beginning in November 1989—so all Bills needing revival were effectively killed. The Leader of the House proposed and right hon. and hon. Members agreed, after consideration, that the Bills could proceed, but would have to start afresh as new Bills. So Southampton's Bill is not unique in losing some months due to procedural disagreements.
On 8 May 1990, the Bill finally received its Third Reading, and had its First Reading in this House. On 14 May, it was passed by the Examiners.
Mr. Hill: No progress was made because Southampton city council could not agree. There has been a terrific amount of interplay, and the Conservative group, aided by the Liberal Democrats, is completely opposed to the Bill. The objections that I have expressed in the House come direct from the city council.
Mr. Garrett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain the motivation for that opposition when he makes his own speech.
The Bill's Second Reading was blocked for the first time on 22 May by Conservative Members, but, subject to this revival, its merits can be properly considered during a Second Reading debate. The democratic argument for further consideration—leaving aside the merits of the proposal—are unanswerable, and the citizens of Southampton would be badly served if the project could not be more closely considered during later stages of the Bill's progress.
At every stage, the project has been the subject of exhaustive consultations with specialists and public opinion in Southampton. The MVA consultancy employed Dr. George Gaskell of the London School of Economics to conduct a public consultation exercise in the

1169
summer and autumn of 1988, and the search for the most effective scheme involved an international competition with proposals from 17 companies and consortia drawn from every continent. I was very pleased that the Briway system, which is British, was chosen. Expert and local evidence was called in the House of Lords Committee.
The rapid transit scheme that the Bill proposes is a practical and imaginative attempt to address current and future public transport challenges in a changing city without burdening Southampton's community charge payers or national taxpayers. That is why, in two independent surveys into public opinion in Southampton, 76 per cent. of all householders and 75 per cent. of individuals in a street survey wanted it. That is why it received all-party support in the other place, with only one dissenting voice heard there on Second Reading. That is why Lord Montagu, chairman of English Heritage, introduced the Bill and spoke in its support. That is why the scheme is not opposed by Hampshire county council and the local chamber of commerce, and why the majority of all councillors on Southampton city council twice voted in favour of the scheme.
Mr. Hill: Hampshire county council takes a completely neutral view. It is neither for nor against the project. One could not hope for the county council to adopt a fairer attitude, given that it is the area's transportation expert.
Mr. Garrett: That is why Hampshire county council is not opposed to the scheme. That seems to me to be a mindless and irrelevant interruption.
That is why the Department of Transport is actively considering the practicalities of introducing the scheme. Most important, that is why no fewer than 20 industrial and commercial concerns—many of which are national household names—are prepared to support the rapid transport scheme commercially. In the face of that support, denying the Bill the chance to progress would not only be undemocratic but would be a disgracefully wasted opportunity for the people who live and work in and travel to and round Southampton city centre.
Having followed the Bill's progress through the parliamentary process, discussed the proposal with people backing it, seen the congestion that the scheme is designed to tackle in the city, and seen and ridden the prototype vehicle for the scheme on its test track in Cranleigh, I am convinced that the matter is of sufficient importance to proceed to a Second Reading debate in the House, and I look forward to the House's assent to this motion.
7.20 pm
Sir David Price: The kindest comment that I can make about the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is to remind the House of those famous lines of Oliver Goldsmith:
"Every absurdity has a champion to defend it."
Mr. John Garrett: If that was a spontaneous reaction to my speech, why did the hon. Gentleman have to read it?
Sir David Price rose—
Mr. John Prescott: Because the Southampton Tory party told him to.
Sir David Price: I think that the shadow transport spokesman should be a little quieter at the moment.
Mr. Janman: The shadow transport spokesman just made a comment from a sedentary position. Does my hon. Friend agree that he is one of the people who would be likely to use this new transport system, because he is unable to use his car?
Sir David Price: I should have to say that that would not apply, because I intend to try to prove to the House that this proposed transport system does not convey people from their homes to the shopping centre.
I argue that the fact that they passed this Bill in another place is absolutely no reason why we should. I remind the House that two years ago there was a Hampshire county council Bill to build a Lyndhurst bypass. It was successful in another place and received a Second Reading here, but in Committee hon. Members were very stern in their condemnation of the Bill. They went so far as to suggest —in very parliamentary language—that the promoters of the Bill had been wasting the House's time. Therefore, on this occasion we are entitled to consider the merits of the Bill, because obviously, if it has merits, we should proceed with it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will bear in mind the fact that the most appropriate occasion to consider the merits of a Bill is when it is before the House on Second Reading. We are now discussing a procedural motion.
Sir David Price: With respect—
Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is relevant to whether the House continues to allow procedural motions such as this to proceed is consideration of what lies behind the Bill, such as the fact that, at the moment, there are between 50 and 70 schemes for light rail systems, most of which will never be approved by Government? Not only do Bills that have little or no hope of success waste the time of Parliament—surely that is valuable enough—but they also lead to an awful waste of public money.
Sir David Price: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. Also, it is relevant to whether the House passes this motion to consider whether the purpose behind the Bill is to produce the form of light transport that the hon. Member for Norwich, South was talking about—the type of system that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) supports, as I do. That is why I think that some reference to the scheme becomes necessary, if we are to decide whether to assent to this motion. I shall endeavour to show the House that the scheme does not do any of the things that the hon. Member for Norwich, South suggests.
Mr. Janman: May I refer back to some of the comments by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett)? For some unknown reason, he has a connection with the city of Southampton, although I am not aware of it—but perhaps he will correct me about that later.
The hon. Member said that it was democratic to allow this motion to proceed. However, this is a revival motion for this Session of Parliament. Given that there is plenty of evidence from the city of Southampton that it is very much divided on the matter—there is plenty of evidence that the city does not want it—it would be undemocratic to assent

1171
to this revival motion so that the Bill could proceed this Session until there was a proven and clearly drafted case for the need and desire for such a transit system.
Sir David Price: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
I invite the House to consider this project for a would-be rapid transit system—that is the name of the Bill. That very name suggests that the new system will produce enhanced facilities to convey the good citizens of Southampton from one part of the city to another, perhaps to bring them from the suburbs to the shopping centre. However, the system does none of those things.
In documentation with the Bill, the system is referred to as a "people mover". That is a sick joke. It no more moves people in any meaningful or constructive sense than a rollercoaster at a holiday camp. In fact, this scheme is little more than a rather grand rollercoaster. The phrase "people mover" reminds me of old-fashioned Soviet newspeak—it might have been written by George Orwell.
The real problem facing the city of Southampton is the same as that facing many other large towns in this country—the future of their city centres and especially of city centre shopping facilities. In the past, many large stores were located in the centre of cities, which acted as a magnet, and people came from all around to shop there. That is no longer the case, for a number of reasons that we are all aware of.
It is perfectly proper for the city of Southampton to try to counter that, and I shall remind the House of the reasons for it: the movement of population out of inner cities into the surrounding countryside; and the enormous increase in motor car ownership. In the Southampton area, many families have two cars, and quite a number with teenage children have more.
Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which the system could operate is in conjunction with park-and-ride facilities? Perhaps I am wrong, but I understand the only way that one could park and ride on this scheme would be if one drove into the centre of Southampton to get on to it.
Sir David Price: My hon. Friend is, as always, extremely well informed.
The third reason is the advent of out-of-town shopping centres. To the east of Southampton, developers are in the process of building a large shopping complex which will combine one of Sainsbury's Savacentres and a Marks and Spencer with large parking facilities. The city of Southampton must put its mind to competing with that sort of attraction. The proposals in the Bill, which are very narrowly defined, go nowhere near meeting those challenges. If anyone doubts that, he should read the note circulated by the promoters of the Bill to hon. Members before this debate; it states:
"the proposed system is not directly intended to improve transport from outlying areas into the city centre".
Therefore, the system does none of the things that a good modern system—
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, during debates on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, an objection was raised when any hon. Member connected with the Bill spoke to people in the Box at the end of the Chamber. You deprecated it when that was taking place, and you and one
1172
of the other Deputy Speakers said how important it was for hon. Members connected with the Bill not to leave the Chamber and go to chat to people in the Box. Will you ensure that that does not happen tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no recollection of instructing the House in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, and persons beyond the Bar of the House are not recognised by the Chair.
Sir David Price: The Bill is entirely irrelevant to Southampton's genuine transport problems. It is of no value to the majority of our citizens.
Mr. Ashby: Hon. Members have mentioned "park and ride", and it has been pointed out that it is necessary to get into Southampton to use the system. I have heard that Southampton's beautiful parks will be used as parking places, which would surely be most—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot deal with such matters in this debate. The motion enables the House, if it chooses, to discuss the matter that the hon. Gentleman is now trying to discuss; but we are currently discussing a procedural matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not seek to raise points of order, or any other points, while I am on my feet. This is a procedural motion which will enable the House to decide whether it wishes to discuss the merits and content of the Bill, and I suggest that we keep to it. No points of order can arise.
Sir David Price: As I have said, the Bill deals with none of Southampton's transport problems, and I therefore think that it would be a waste of the House's time to proceed further with it. Let me refer any hon. Member who considers that an irrelevant consideration at this stage to the story of the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill 1988. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the only possible advantage of the proposed system—it is not even a circular system surrounding the shopping centre; it is a distorted U-bend—is the provision of a "mickey mouse railway" for the kids. I am, of course, entirely sympathetic to the case that could be made for experimentation with some novel form of transport that could bring the majority of Southampton's citizens closer to the city centre, and bring people in from outside.
Mr. Peter Viggers: As my hon. Friend knows, we are debating whether we should take parliamentary time to consider this Bill. Is he aware of the proposal for a light rail transit system linking Fareham with Gosport, and with an underwater, under-harbour link with Portsmouth, which may proceed in due course if parliamentary time is available? The matter is currently being studied, but giving parliamentary time to the Southampton Bill might prevent proper consideration of a much more sensible scheme.
Sir David Price: That will interest many hon. Members. Most of us who are here tonight are probably sympathetic to new transport systems, and to the idea that they should be integrated with parking. My real objection to the Bill is that it achieves none of the objectives that we consider desirable, and is taking up parliamentary time for the sake of a scheme that will not secure a common public aim with

1173
which many of us sympathise. That is why some of us have called it a mickey mouse scheme. Moreover, it has no tourist advantages—it is only a little U-bend around the middle of Southampton—and is environmentally damaging. One of the glories of Southampton is its old walls, which the scheme would jeopardise.
Hon. Members should consider how far the terms of the Bill correspond with the system that they think will result. We have not been told the names of any of the supposed great private sponsors, but without the money the whole project will collapse, as the hon. Member for Norwich, South conceded. On that ground alone, the Bill is a waste of parliamentary time.
Mr. Hill: There was great excitement in Southampton city council about a year ago, when Mr. Peter de Savary bought Eastleigh airfield. The press office rushed into print the story that Mr. de Savary might be prepared to link Eastleigh airport with the city centre. That, too, was pie in the sky—and we have been eating a lot of that pie.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the motion.
Sir David Price: Let me return to the question of where the money will come from. Given the time that has elapsed since the Bill's Second Reading in another place, I should have thought that by now it would be clear—
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of challenging your ruling, but may I draw your attention to the guidance that was issued when we last debated a revival motion—on a Bill that affected my constituency? The Chair ruled that, as the Bill had not been presented to the House for Second Reading, it was in order for "reasonable latitude" to be granted for the background to be explained, and that the Chair could therefore allow
"more than the customary flexibility."—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 672.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that, when the hon. Gentleman said that he would not dream of challenging my ruling, he meant what he said.
I think that the House will agree that, so far, I have allowed the "reasonable latitude" advocated by the occupant of the Chair on that earlier occasion. It is for the Chair to judge how much latitude should be provided and how reasonable it should be, and I think that so far I have been quite reasonable.
Sir David Price: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I think that it is relevant to the motion to ask the promoters for more information about where the money will come from. The hon. Member for Norwich, South made it clear that it would come from the private sector, but I know of no single corporate investor who is proposing to put money into the project. As for the individual Southampton citizen, as far as I am aware no great queue of would-be investors has formed outside the civic offices, as happened in London at the time of the electricity privatisation. I am reminded of the notice in the window of a famous Dublin undertaker, which read: "Funerals arranged—self-drive service".
I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that the Bill makes no constructive contribution to the real problems relating to Southampton's city centre and its local businesses. It is about as helpful as throwing a
1174
drowning man both ends of a rope. I do not think that we should waste the House's time any further, and I very much hope that the motion will not be passed tonight.
7.37 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: As the House must be well aware by now, we are debating a revival motion, not a motion for Second Reading. So far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have shown considerable understanding when hon. Members have strayed a footstep or two into the detail of the Bill. The detail must be considered to some extent, because, if the revival motion is not carried this evening, the Bill will be killed off completely. Our views on both the principle and the detail are therefore relevant to what is essentially a procedural motion.
Let me declare an interest—not a pecuniary interest. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), comprises part of the suburbs of Southampton: mine covers the western half of the blue horseshoe that surrounds the city, while his covers the eastern half. My constituents and I are frequent travellers in and out of Southampton, as I have been all my life. Some people go there to work, some to shop and some to visit Southampton's two theatres—and very good they are, too—or its museums and art galleries. Southampton has a great deal to offer, although my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) would be the first to admit that it is probably not the tourist mecca that some others cities represent.
Mr. Hill: We are trying to make progress with the sporting facilities at Lordshill. I understand that my hon. Friend opposes the scheme, for many reasons. We are short of an ice rink and all other sporting facilities—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straining my reasonable latitude.
Mr. Hill: The point that I am trying to make to my hon. Friend is that it is not much good having a people mover if there is opposition to sporting facilities in the city.
Mr. Colvin: I am not sure whether you would like me to respond to that intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Viggers: Southampton needs an ice rink, but Gosport has one. It will be on the route of the Gosport 1.0 Fareham light rail transit if and when—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back, please, to the motion on-the Order Paper.
Mr. Colvin: On the-pRint made by my hon. Friend the Member for Test, I have taken my lead from democratically elected local representatives—the parish council of Nursling and Rownhams, which would be seriously affected by the planning application to which my hon. Friend referred. We must pay attention to the views of democratically elected local representatives on ice rinks, tennis courts, and the people mover.
Southampton is, par excellence, a transport city and experiments of this nature could appropriately be carried out there. It is Britain's premier gateway to Europe. Moreover, 60,000 people travel into and out of Southampton every day. That represents 120,000 movements into and out of the city each day. That could rise to 200,000 movements when the proposed city centre

1175
development goes ahead. I am told that it would be funded completely by private enterprise money and would cost £1 billion. Transport pressures in the city will then increase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to out-of-town shopping. That raises another interesting point. My constituency suffers from many pressures. There is much pressure to build out-of-town shopping precincts in the vicinity of Romsey, but my constituents hotly resist such development. They would prefer to travel by some means of mass transport system to Southampton, thereby bringing prosperity and jobs to the city, instead of having to tolerate unnecessary development in their own backyard.
Mr. Janman: If I heard my hon. Friend correctly, the implication is that someone who lives in one of the outer suburbs of Southampton, such as Lordshill, would be able to get on to the rapid transport system and go to the centre of the city. If, however, he looks at the proposals as outlined on the map, he will see that the rapid transport system does not go anywhere near any of the outer parts of the city. It goes round the periphery of the city centre.
Mr. Colvin: If my hon. Friend would contain himself —that is the first and last time that I shall give way to him —he would hear that most of us who live in and around Southampton are subjected to considerable traffic congestion. The city of Southampton is not well endowed with car parks. There are about 15,800 car parking spaces in the city. One of the advantages of the proposed people mover is that additional car parking places for my constituents who want to go into Southampton could be provided on less valuable ground, thereby releasing the ground at present used for car parking for more intensive development.
I should like to be able to park my car in a convenient car park and then get on to the people mover to go around Southampton. I do not enjoy walking round the city on a wet day. As Southampton is in the south of England, hon. Members with constituencies elsewhere might presume that it is a lovely, dry and sunny place throughout the year. It is not. According to the Meteorological Office, in the past 10 years, Southampton had on average 119 wet days out of 365. When one walks from the car into Southampton city centre to shop or to go to work, one needs an umbrella or a raincoat one day in three. It would be much more comfortable if one could get on to a people mover.
Mr. Keith Mans: How will the proposal help to reduce the congestion between my hon. Friend's constituency and Southampton?
Mr. Colvin: I shall come to that point in a minute. There is congestion on the roads when one drives in and out of Southampton, but we are dealing in this motion with traffic congestion in Southampton because it does not have a people mover. Southampton would be an excellent place for a rapid transit system—or what has been referred to in the debate as a people mover. They are becoming popular elsewhere in the world. I have a list of the cities that enjoy such a facility.
Sir David Price: If my hon. Friend wants to improve public transport from his constituency to Southampton, he should work with British Rail and the county council so
1176
that the system is sited over the existing railway line. He might then achieve his aim. This, however, is just a mickey mouse scheme in the middle of Southampton.
Mr. Colvin: I take my hon. Friend's point. That would require another private Bill. I wish that these matters could be proceeded with by means other than private Bills and the need for procedural motions.
Mr. Viggers: This is the third time that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) has referred to the proposal as a mickey mouse scheme. I submit that that is unfair to mickey mouse. Disneyland has just such a system. It works extremely well because it is designed exactly to meet the needs and shape of Disneyland, whereas this scheme is not designed to meet the needs and shape of Southampton city centre.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could return to the motion before the House and get away from Disneyland.
Mr. Colvin: I trust that in cities such as Jacksonville, Miami, Bordeaux, Sydney, Toulouse, Strasbourg, Orly, Taipeh and Chicago private Bills were not required for either the municipality or free enterprise to construct the people mover systems that those cities now enjoy. A people mover was constructed in Lille in 1983. Admittedly, it was a small, mickey mouse system to begin with, but it was so popular that it was extended three times and has now carried over 130 million passengers in total.
Mr. Peter Snape: Perhaps in Lille and the other cities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned they did not have mickey mouse politicians similar to the right-wing bunch of school boys sitting alongside him while he makes a serious attempt properly to debate the motion.
Mr. Colvin: After that helpful intervention I shall continue.
Mr. Hill: I have been going to Strasbourg for a considerable time and I have never noticed a railway on concrete lines going through the city. The only little railway there is for tourists. It is shaped like a Noddy train and pulls about four coaches. Is that the railway to which my hon. Friend is referring?
Mr. Colvin: I have not had the advantage of going to Strasbourg to see the railway, but I will go now and have a look at it. I have not been to the cities that I mentioned, but perhaps my hon. Friend has.
There are three options facing Southampton. First, it can do nothing about its traffic congestion. Secondly, it could, given a fair wind, as it is trying to do, secure the passing of the revival motion so that it can introduce a light rail system at ground level, which would conflict with existing traffic and cause even greater problems. Thirdly, it could have a so-called people mover such as that recommended in the Bill. It would be electronically powered and automatic with unmanned vehicles. It would probably run on rubber wheels and it would be on a segregated guideway, which would mean that there would be no waiting. It would probably have great passenger appeal. I would certainly use it. It would not conflict with any of the existing roadways and would not add to congestion or exacerbate existing traffic problems. It would have to be either under ground or above ground. The proposed system is above ground level. That view was

1177
shared by Her Majesty's Government, when, in April 1989 —the House has been at this for a long time—Lord Brabazon of Tara said:
"This is one of a number of private Bills providing for new light transport systems in our major cities. Potentially these systems have many advantages: for example, where segregated from other vehicles, they achieve faster speeds than buses; they also have the flexibility to cope with gradients and curves beyond the capacity of conventional railways."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 1989; Vol. 506, c. 463.]
He also said that the Government had no objection o the Bill and that he hoped that the other place would give it a Second Reading, which it did.
If a magic wand could be waved, I should like to see a people mover operating in Southampton. I would certainly use it. Surely it is up to Southampton and its elected representatives to decide. It is not for us to dictate to Southampton on such a matter.
Mr. Ashby: What weight would my hon. Friend give to the elected Members of Parliament from Southampton, both of whom are against the scheme? Should weight be given to the Conservatives on the council who, as I understand it, are equally opposed to the scheme? Should weight be given to some 86 per cent. of the population of Southampton who took part in a wide survey of 3,000 to 4,000 people?
Mr. Colvin: That is a weighty question. I hesitate to draw a comparison between hon. Members elected to this House and councillors elected to the city council when it comes to weighing up the relative power of their opinion and the value of their judgment. We are debating this matter in this House and, therefore, we must give priority to the opinions of the elected representatives from Southampton in the Chamber—my hon. Friends the Members for Test and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope). My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen is a Minister, so will be unable to speak, but I believe that he shares the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Test.
Sir David Price: On his interesting democratic point, does my hon. Friend accept that when a Bill is before the House, the views of local Members of Parliament are of overriding importance? If a motion is before the local city council, it is quite different.
Mr. Colvin: As one would expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has put far more eloquently the point that I was trying to make. Members of Parliament are sent to this place to use their judgment and that is precisely what we shall be doing after having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Test because it is his judgment to which we shall listen most carefully. The importance of listening to elected representatives from Southampton is that they will have to live with the people mover if it is constructed and they represent those who may have to pay for it if it is not viable. So, the principal question that we must consider is whether the people mover will be viable and, if not, in discussing this procedural motion, are we saying that the people of Southampton will have to pay for it instead?
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh hinted that he was in favour of the principle but not necessarily in favour of this scheme. I accept that and I shall now deal with some of the interventions by my hon. Friends. I have distinct reservations. The failure of the scheme to connect directly with the suburbs is of paramount importance
1178
because it means that my constituents in Romsey could not get straight on to it to come into Southampton, bat would have to clog up the roads to get there. There are problems in the Waterside part of my constituency where the A326 is a well-known death trap. It is congested at Totton going into Southampton over what is known as the red bridge. If the people mover connected directly with the Waterside part of my constituency either by a bridge or a tunnel under Southampton water, I should be the first to vote for the revival motion. As some of my hon. Friends have said, it is no use producing a mickey mouse system that just goes round the centre of the city. It has to connect with the infrastructure.
Sir Anthony Grant: I have been listening to the debate with keen interest because we talk about such matters in Cambridgeshire, which has similar problems that may come before the House. I have listened to my hon. Friends' criticisms of the Bill and for the past hour we have been listening to criticisms from hon. Members who know a great deal more about this than I do. We are being asked to provide for the revival of the Bill so that it can have a Second Reading. In view of all the Bill's obvious defects and the opposition to it, would it not be more sensible to refuse to allow the Bill to be revived so that the promoters and everybody else can take on board all the points that have been made, together with the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and the criticisms about the mickey mouse nature of the scheme, and come back, if necessary, with a much more sensible scheme? Therefore, is it not logical for the House to refuse to allow the Bill to be revived?
Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend has really made his speech. His is a sensible proposal and I am sure that hon. Members will take it on board.
My other criticism of the system as proposed in the Bill is the failure to complete the so-called loop. Originally it was a loop and that seemed to make sense, but now it is a horseshoe because one section has been removed. I am told that the loop could be completed later.
Mr. Hill: The circle was cut because Liberal Democrats would not support socialist councillors in impinging on the park land that was necessary to complete the central loop.
Mr. Colvin: I understand that, but I do not want to debate the detail of the route too much as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have to call me to order.
Many points have been made about funding. Of all my reservations, the one about funding is the most important. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh asked where the money is coming from. Southampton city council issued a press statement on 2 February 1989, in which it said:
"The Council has resolved that all the money needed to build and operate the people mover must come from the private sector, whose benefit would exceed its contribution. The people mover is forecast to generate operating profit as a business in its own right."
That sounded very good two years ago, but in a statement which hon. Members will have received in advance of the debate, the promoters say:
"Although the City Council have initiated the scheme for rapid transit, it is intended that the system should be financed almost entirely by contributions from developers and from other sources in the private sector."
The council is not quite so bullish as it was two years ago, which begins to sow seeds of doubt in my mind about financial viability. In its circular to hon. Members, it

1179
anticipated the question whether developers in Southampton would provide some of the funds. It answered that simply by saying:
"Developers have publicly expressed support for the scheme, and indicated a willingness to make a financial contribution; consultants' calculations suggest that there are substantial, real commercial benefits to be gained from the People Mover; firm commitments from developers can only be obtained at a later stage."
There is the rub. By "later stage", they mean that, when developers have a prospectus before them from which they can judge the detailed merits of the people mover and its financial viability, they can make a judgment. I have a list showing 20 of the so-called financial supporters—big businesses in Southampton—which would be prepared, we are told, to put up money: Debenhams, Marks and Spencer, Ocean Village Ltd., Associated British Ports, a major land owner in the dock area of the city, Southern Electric, Imry Holdings Ltd, the Pentagon—I am not sure what that is, but I am sure that it is not the one about which we hear so much in the news—Drawlane Transport Group, Southampton Citybus and British Rail, all of which are big transport operators, Tarmac Construction, Mowlem, Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd., Bovis, P. Trant Ltd., Southampton city council, Briway Transit Systems, Brown and Root Vickers Ltd., and Von Roll Transport System Ltd. They will not know whether to invest until they see a prospectus, which they will not see unless the Bill completes its passage through Parliament.
We should consider whether a revival motion could be influenced by our opinion of Southampton city council's preferred mass transit system. It has selected the Briway Transit system following international competition against the major suppliers of transit systems. It selected Briway because, first, it employs modern and proven technology; secondly, it fulfilled the tender specification in every respect; thirdly, its performance was greatly superior to other transit systems in terms of quietness, speed, gradient climbing and ability to negotiate six-metre radius turns smoothly and comfortably; fourthly, it was competitive in price, and viable to operate with low fares, which is very important; fifthly, it was environmentally friendly and energy efficient; sixthly, it would be built with the minimum of disturbance and noise; and, finally, it was demonstrated to be a system capable of great flexibility in its applications and one which could be easily extended to serve suburban communities. As a Member of Parliament who represents one of the suburbs of Southampton, I particularly like that latter reason. The council might have added that it is British—another good reason for selecting Briway. That has all given Briway the stamp of approval, which is helping it to win valuable export orders in Australia, Malaysia, Korea and Taiwan. It is something for a British company to beat the Koreans and Taiwanese at their own game.
Briway is being evaluated by three major airports in the United Kingdom as well as in Leeds, Bristol, Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent and Kent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), as Transport Ministers, have been greatly impressed by demonstrations of the Briway system at the designer's test track.
1180
If that stamp of approval for Briway were not enough, I can report that Birmingham Centro, the corporate name of the West Midlands passenger transport executive, has just heard from the Department of Transport that it has singled out Briway as the benchmark against which other systems are being evaluated for the Midland metro. That is a tribute to Mr. Alan Bristow, the owner of Briway, and to his designers and engineers, who have a world-beater in an increasingly competitive market.
Mr. Hill: I should like to make it perfectly clear that at no time has anyone said that the system is not capable of doing the job. We have said that the elevated track, close to the medieval walls of the city, is environmentally gruesome. I am going to see the chairman of Briway in about two weeks' time to reassure him that his train was not criticised and that if there is a sensible transport scheme for the city of Southampton his company could be one of the forerunners.
Mr. Colvin: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that; it may influence the way in which I vote. I am delighted to know that he is going to see the Briway system. I have seen it, as have many other city councillors who are interested in the project.
It is probably true that if a canvass survey were carried out to which people responded realistically, more people would be in favour of a mass transit system in the middle of Southampton than against it. That would also be true if one took in people from outside the city of Southampton, who would be able, like me, to enjoy the system without the risk of having to carry the can of paying for it in due course were it not a financial success.
I have concluded that Southampton city council has produced, in essence, a good scheme, although there is no doubt that it is capable of improvement. The council has selected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test said, the right system in choosing Briway as the mass transit system. Whether in today's economic climate the system should proceed is debatable. The revival motion provides for that.
I shall listen carefully to what hon. Members have to say and especially to what my hon. Friend the Member for Test says. He is the hon. Member who is most closely affected, so I shall listen to him before I decide how to vote.
8.10 pm
The Minister for Shipping and Public Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It may be helpful if I intervene briefly to explain the Government's position. Clearly, there has been great interest in the Bill among Conservative Members. The system is undoubtedly controversial within the Southampton area, but it is not for me to comment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) feels strongly. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is following the issue very closely but, obviously, he cannot take part in the debate.
I reiterate that the Government's position is strictly neutral. We are grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for tabling the motion so that the House can reach a decision. However, it is for the House to decide; it is not for the Government to have a view or to take a line, and the Government will follow their usual practice in these matters.
8.11 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: The debate has been interesting so far, if only because of the presence of some Conservative Members who have been attracted to it. I understand that there are opposing views about the proposal in Southampton and elsewhere in that part of the world. The procedural motion will enable those views to be heard and it will also enable the petitioners against the Bill to put their case before the House. A few minutes ago, there was discussion about the proper role of Members of Parliament in private Bill procedure. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) agrees, at least for the moment. A number of hon. Members with no pecuniary or constituency interest in the scheme will hear the views of the petitioners and recommend accordingly. Although there are many unsatisfactory aspects to the private Bill procedure, private Bill Committees have worked well over the years. Most petitioners have pronounced themselves reasonably happy with the conduct of the Committees and with the way in which their objections have been heard and, on some occasions, resolved. It would seem from what we have heard so far—especially from some Conservative Members—that there is no pleasing some hon. Members. I will not comment yet on the position of the hon. Member for Test whose speech we eagerly await.
When I saw some of the characters who had been attracted to the debate, I knew that we were in for an eventful, if not an informative, evening. I was interested in the views of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I know that he participates eagerly in these debates. He expressed the view strongly that it was not for my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who introduced the Bill with his customary ability, to take instructions from third parties. My hon. Friend consulted a third party whom we do not recognise in this Chamber, after he had made his speech. I only wish that some Conservative Members had done the same in the course of similar legislation.
Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Snape: I will give way in a moment. I have not finished with the hon. Gentleman yet; in fact I have barely started. I will give way at the appropriate time.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South was taking instructions from someone else. The Bill has, after all, been supported by democratically elected members of Southampton city council. I seem to remember that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes gave slavish devotion to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill which was opposed by democratically elected councillors and which was supported only by the paid directors of a trust port. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect that Opposition Members at least are more impressed by the views of democratically elected councillors of whichever party than by the views of paid directors of a particular trust port. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that aspect of his previous argument. In my view and in that of the Labour party, it is perfectly reasonable and honourable for the sponsors of private Bills such as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South to conduct themselves in that way.
Mr. Michael Brown: When the democratically elected councillors of Glanford, of Cleethorpes and of Humberside voted in favour of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, why did the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not accept the democratic view?
I raised the point about the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) consulting persons outside the Chamber because, when I was in the hon. Gentleman's position, many Opposition Members made great play of the fact that I was doing what the hon. Gentleman has done. I am merely trying to suggest that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) should bear in mind all the actions that he and his hon. Friends took when I was in the position of the hon. Member for Norwich, South.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that, in responding, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will remember that we are dealing with the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill and with its revival motion.
Mr. Snape: Those matters will be uppermost in my mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was talking about the promoters of the Bill. In this case, the promoter is the democratically elected local authority. In the case of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, the promoters were the paid directors of the trust port to whom the hon. Member for Brigg arid Cleethorpes gave slavish support in the course of the legislation.
Mr. John Garrett: In response to the hyperthyroid intervention from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), let me say that my hon. Friend may be interested to know that I spoke to people—who do not exist in the eyes of the House—after my speech simply to point out that the opposition to the Bill was lengthy and eccentric, so they might be here for some hours yet.
Mr. Snape: I do not want my hon. Friend to think that I am being rude. I should have thought that that conclusion might have been drawn by the people who do not exist when they saw some of the hon. Members who had been attracted to the debate.
The basic objections to the Bill appear to be politically based. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has pointed out, Southampton, like many similar towns—
Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Snape: Let me continue and then I will think about it. The hon. Gentleman has intervened six times, but he has not shed much light on our proceedings despite the thousands of words that he has expended during those interventions. I might give way to the hon. Gentleman in the next few minutes if he is nice to me, but at the moment I am dealing with the eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside, who pointed out that, like other similar towns and cities throughout the country, Southampton has a severe traffic problem—[Interruption.] I should have thought that even the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes—non-stop sedentary chatterbox that he is—would appreciate that the citizens of Southampton are concerned about traffic congestion, and

1183
that that is why their elected representatives have proposed a scheme which they hope will help to alleviate some of that congestion.
Sir David Price: It will not.
Mr. Snape: Again from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman points out that it will not. It would be difficult, under our archaic procedures, for local authorities to propose a scheme overnight involving the digging up or laying of tracks in every single suburb in every city centre in the country. One has to start somewhere. I shall not linger for too long on the details of the Bill, but I understand that it would facilitate the start of a scheme which the city council hopes will eventually contribute substantially to the alleviation of traffic congestion in the city. It appears to me that that is a worthy objective, and it ought to be given due consideration under the procedures of the House.
Mr. Janman rose—
Mr. Colvin rose—
Mr. Snape: I shall come to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) shortly. I have been referring to the speech made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside and I now give way to him.
Mr. Colvin: It is clear that if a people mover were constructed in Southampton, it would have a considerable environmental impact on the city. In such cases, it is open to city councils to apply to the Department of Transport for a section 56 grant. On this occasion, the Minister was up and down like a Jack-in-the-box; there was no time to intervene in his speech. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) would like to ask the Minister—in the hope that we shall get an answer—whether Southampton has applied for a grant or intends to do so and whether it would qualify for such help from taxpayers' money as well as community charge payers' money.
Mr. Snape: Two matters directly arise from the hon. Gentleman's intervention. First, I could not put such a question as eloquently as him. Secondly, knowing the Minister as I do, I very much doubt whether we would get a straight answer to that question. I fear that if we got a straight answer, and if it were anything other than no, the Minister might be an ex-Minister first thing tomorrow morning. No hon. Member on either side of the House would want that even if Labour wants them all out come the next general election.
Mr. McLoughlin: Let me clarify the matter. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) did not have time to intervene in my speech. I usually try to keep my remarks short on these occasions, as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
I understand that Southampton city council had originally hoped to finance the project entirely through contributions from developers and others but that it has now concluded that there will be a need for a public sector contribution, including a section 56 grant. However, no application for a section 56 grant has yet been made, or received.
Mr. Colvin: Taxpayers' money.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside refers to taxpayers' money in the sort of tone that Mary Whitehouse might use when referring to certain television programmes. It seems that our fleeting moment of agreement is at an end. Whether in Southampton or in any other city, it would be fairly difficult to financee a people mover or any sort of public transport scheme without any public money. It would be fairly difficult to find a city anywhere in the world where some public money had not been spent on transport. It is entirely to the credit of Southampton city council that, in embarking on the project, it has tried to attract private finance. Should the motion be approved, we shall be able to hear in detail what the council has done, what it expects to do and how much interest has been generated. If, on the other hand, the motion is defeated because of the ideological objections of the far right of the Conservative party, we shall never have the opportunity to hear about that, even though a considerable amount of public money will have been spent on taking the Bill through the other place and preparing it for its passage through this House.
Mr. Janman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not thinking of me when he referred to the far right. Let me come to the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). It was a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to chastise my hon. Friend and to say that he was inconsistent. The recent exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) concerning the possibility of taxpayers' money being put into the system supports my argument. One cannot compare support for a trust port scheme with support for a local authority scheme. The trust port scheme that my hon. Friend supported was not going to make any demands on the public purse.
In this case, however, we have a city council—albeit democratically-elected—which wants to do something which will make demands on the public purse in such a way as to involve central Government finance. Perhaps, therefore, it would be right to take note not just of what the democratically-elected council says but of what the two local democratically-elected parliamentarians say, which is that we are talking about public finance, including taxpayers' money. That is an important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is absolutely right and is being entirely consistent.
Mr. Snape: I was reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and no doubt you can see why, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was interminably long and predictably inaccurate. The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill will involve public money because the busier the port becomes—[Interruption]. The Minister ought to listen to this because he is looking bewildered. The busier the port becomes, the more the public sector will be called upon to improve road links to the port because it will be said that heavy traffic is passing too close to people's homes. With the Department as it is, that is presumably exactly what will happen. The Minister can usually find money for road developments but not for public transport.
Mr. McLoughlin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that a substantial amount of public money has been going into various light rail schemes which have met the

1185
criteria for section 56 grants. Those schemes include a large development under way in Manchester. My hon. Friends gave permission for the Sheffield scheme to go forward and we are currently evaluating the Centro scheme.
Mr. Snape: Strictly speaking, the Centro scheme has nothing to do with the motion before us, but I have a deep personal interest in it because it passes through my constituency. I noted from the Minister's comments a week or so ago that he has managed to find money for a roads package around Birmingham, even though he is still evaluating the public transport advantages that wall be provided by the Midland metro.
Let me return to the motion. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Test is no longer in his place. I said earlier that I intended to refer to him. I understand his basic objection to the proposal, which is a political objection. In his view, the fact that Labour-controlled Southampton city council has made the proposal is good enough reason to oppose it. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said so far will lead me to any other conclusion, although there are other reasons that we might consider. It is apparent, for example, that the hon. Gentleman is not the sort of man who would ride round the city centre on the people mover. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman prefers a good brisk walk on his way to the gymnasium or the squash court. All credit to him for that; it shows in his remarkable physical appearance. But the other citizens of Southampton may not be quite as fit and athletic as the hon. Gentleman, and they may want a people mover. The fact is that we do not know, and tonight is not the occasion on which to find out. Given the amount of public money involved, it would seem eminently sensible—
Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Snape: I shall certainly not give way to the hon. Gentleman again as I do not have another 15 minutes to spare. His hon. Friend the Member for Test ought to be here if he has a point to make. Although the two hon. Gentleman are very similar physically and spend a lot of time playing squash or whatever they do together, we had better wait for the hon. Member for Test to make the point.
Mr. Janman rose—
Mr. Snape: If the hon. Gentleman guarantees that his intervention will be a normal sentence long—
Mr. John Garrett: And sensible.
Mr. Snape: Well, I cannot accept that it will be very sensible—in fact, I know that it will not be—but if he promises that it will be short, I will give way.
Mr. Janman: It will be short and not sensible. The hon. Gentleman is implying that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) is not very fit and that therefore he will not be able to gain access to this system because it is elevated and he will not be able to climb the many flights of stairs that he would have to climb to get into the carriages.
Mr. Snape: For once there is a grain of truth in something the hon. Gentleman says. It seems to me that the scheme has even greater merit now because in no time at all the hon. Member for Test will be even fitter than his hon. Friend. That is another argument in favour of the
1186
scheme. For all of us who have listened to the hon. Member for Test over the years, the idea of being guaranteed his presence and common sense for many more years is appealing.
The hon. Member for Thurrock and some of his hon. Friends make great play with their concern about public money. I remind them that preparing such legislation is not cheap. Our learned friends do not work for a guinea a word any more. I understand that the price has gone up considerably. I understand, further, that the costs that the poll tax payers of Southampton have inevitably incurred, as would happen in the case of any other legislation to do with public transport, already amount to around three quarters of a million pounds.
This means that the debates about the merits of this scheme and the objections to it ought to be fully heard. That investment, which has been made to bring improved public transport to the crowded and congested city of Southampton, should receive a fair hearing in this place through the procedures that I outlined earlier. I hope, therefore, that the House will give this proposal the go-ahead this evening and that we can see in detail what is proposed and what are the objections. To defeat the Bill at this stage would not only indicate the right-wing bias and ideology of certain Tory Members present this evening; it would also be extremely expensive for the poll tax payers of Southampton—a fact of which I and my hon. Friends will remind them in the time up to and including the next general election.
8.34 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: The Chair has already said that in discussions of this kind it allows a certain latitude with regard to what might otherwise be an extremely narrow point. I rise purely to be of assistance to the Chair in that I do not want to talk about the merits of the Bill at all; I want to talk about the motion. I do so for a very serious reason. It is not only that I happen to represent a south coast constituency where we are interested in moving people conveniently and quickly and therefore interested in the ways other people may find to deal with this problem; it is that some years ago I was a member of the Committee which considered the Ginns and Guttridge (Crematorium) Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members in this crowded House are fully aware of the details of that Bill and I will not rehearse them this evening. But I remind the House that that was the longest private Bill Committee this century. Not only did it have to have revival motions but it ran over from one Parliament to the next. A general election intervened and the Bill had to be brought back again.
The point is that in the end, when the Bill came back from the Committee, on which we had worked literally for years, it was defeated in the House. The Bill—for the sake of hon. Members who were not then in the House, although I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember it—concerned a proposal for the building of a crematorium in the city of Leicester. The discussion was about whether it was a suitable site, whether the technology was correct, whether the traffic arrangements were right, and so on.
It was a tragedy that the system of working through a private Bill and the procedures of the House on that occasion provided absolutely no protection to a moderately sized company which needed to promote a Bill

1187
of this nature. Although a carry-over motion contains within its terms a provision that there shall not be renewed fees because the Bill is being renewed, that does not mean that the costs to the promoters cease. The costs of legal advice and of counsel continue.
It was said earlier this evening that the members of the legal profession were probably not unduly concerned that our debate might take three hours as opposed to one. I am quite sure that there was no great objection to the fact that the Bill to which I referred took three years.
Mr. Janman: I just want to give my hon. Friend some information that supports his point. I quote from an article in the Sunday Evening Echo written by the local government correspondent, Kate Thompson, which says:
"A secret memo written by project manager Steve Keys"—
who I think is somebody connected with the company that has been set up to further the cause of this project—
"reveals that a further £176,000 will have to be pumped into the project if more parliamentary time is won tonight."
So if one shares the concern of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about waste of community charge payers' money, it would be a very good thing not to allow the motion to go through tonight.
Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because that is the danger. If the Bill is likely to succeed, there is every reason for us to give it a fair wind, particularly if we have no direct, immediate interest in its provisions. If there is a scheme for the improvement of transport in the great city of Southampton, the citizens of the even greater city of Portsmouth will wish it well, but all the evidence is that this is a highly controversial proposal and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who spoke to the motion, would agree that there is no evidence of broad unanimity in the city of Southampton. All that we have to do is convince the House that what the people of Southampton want is right.
Mr. John Garrett: It has the support of the majority of councillors. Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard that?
Mr. Griffiths: I will rephrase what I said. I am trying very hard not to be politically controversial. I want to talk about the practicalities. It is true that the majority of Southampton city council has given approval to this scheme, but it is perfectly reasonable to say that something of this nature should not be based on a single political party. Three major political parties are represented on Southampton city council and I should have thought that something based on one party would fall within the definition of being politically controversial.
Mr. Snape: It is a very interesting constitutional theory that it is unfair to put legislation through if it is supported by only one party. That is not really a doctrine, I should have thought, for which the previous Prime Minister would have had any time. However, I will turn to the more realistic parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech. None of us knows whether the Bill deserves the wide support which the hon. Gentleman is urging. If the motion is agreed, we shall find out. It will then be for the House to approve or reject it after it has been considered in Committee and we
1188
have seen how detailed the support and opposition are and the grounds for both. Would not that be a more sensible way of proceeding?
Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do not agree with the conclusion that, although the Bill may have majority support in Southampton city council, it is perfectly legitimate for the council to claim that that is what it wants. Hon. Members do not have to say that, because a majority on Southampton city council wants the Bill, we must rubber-stamp it. Our job is to protect the broad interests not of Southampton city council but of the people of Southampton and all those who would say that the House must give its approval. The House is not being asked to rubber-stamp something that has been decided in Southampton; it is being asked to say that the measure should be agreed.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), I am not as opposed to the scheme as some of our colleagues are. However, based on my experience, I believe that we should not incur further expenditure at every stage of a Bill which probably will not receive the support of the House or be put into operation, thereby leaving the costs to be borne by the promoters.
In the case of the Ginns and Guttridge (Crematorium) Bill, one of the tragedies was that a relatively modest company put forward the proposal. The procedures of the House were allowed to continue. It was not the company's fault that it took years, but there were enormous costs. However, it was a commercial business. It went into the matter with its eyes open. It decided to put its own money forward, and it lost. This is a different situation. We are talking not about whether those who put money into the scheme for the so-called people mover will receive profits. That is definitely not a matter for discussion tonight; it is a matter for Second Reading. However, it is clear that the longer the Bill is allowed to run the greater will be the burden to be borne by the community charge payers of the city of Southampton. Members of Parliament are entitled to consider whether a proposal from a political party in a certain city should merit the support of the House when it will involve costs on people who clearly do not unanimously support that proposal.
The House would probably be willing to support a proposal for a tramway or a rapid transit system to alleviate the problems of people who wish to reach the city of Southampton and then go to their ultimate destinations. Such a scheme would have broad support across the political spectrum. I should be more impressed if some members of each party on the council were strongly in favour and some were opposed than if a scheme appeared to have only one-party support.
Mr. Snape: On the council.
Mr. Griffiths: On the council. Therefore, it would be even more difficult to raise the money necessary for the scheme to proceed and to make the Southampton community charge payers' investment worth while.
I am told that £0·75 million has already been spent and I am sure that not all the final bills are in. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) pointed out that a document, the authenticity of which I am not aware, refers to a sizeable tranche of public funds that are already committed. We are talking about large expenditure. There comes a point at which we should say, "Unless we are sure

1189
that the scheme will be practical, we should say no." That is our responsibility—it is not to decide whether we want a horseshoe-shaped, circular or elevated scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has strong feelings on those points. However, with respect, they are not what we are deciding. We are deciding whether to encourage the scheme, knowing that it is highly controversial, has unbalanced political support and may never come to fruition. The scheme has fulfilled a valuable purpose. It has provided an opportunity to discuss a rapid transit scheme in Southampton. Much of the preliminary work will be borne in mind elsewhere and people will consider what has happened.
Mr. Snape: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. It is a little contradictory to talk about how much money has been spent on the Bill and then to say that there has been a valuable discussion. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It would be expensive if we abandoned the scheme now. We would have had better value for money, to use the phraseology of the Conservative party, if we had used the ten-minute Bill procedure. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill began in the House of Lords, which is one reason why it has come to us so late as to need a carry-over motion.
Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I trust that I did not suggest that the expenditure that has been incurred has been wasteful. I am sure that I did not use that term, and I did not intend to imply it. I suggested that that is the amount that has been spent. We should always take advantage of what has been obtained from such expenditure. Work has been done surveying the route and on the examination of technical problems, and it could be adopted elsewhere. However, expenditure is not an argument for adopting the scheme. There comes a time when it is sensible to say, "Enough is enough. We went down the wrong route to start with." It is better to stop and use what can be learnt from mistakes and then to find a scheme that has broad support. An alternative scheme with broad support would cost less because of the work that has been done.
Hon. Members would be wise to reject the proposal and say that we are concerned not with the merits of the scheme but with the reputation of the House for encouraging a project that is likely to prove expensive and not come to fruition.
I sat through the Committee which considered perhaps the worst example that is possible. Since then I have consistently come to the House to support private Bills. I have supported carry-over motions and done my best to facilitate private Bills because I realise the risk and cost that promoters face. I have given my support because of my experience. But at the back of my mind I recognise that if only at an earlier stage someone had made it clear to Messrs. Ginns and Guttridge that their Bill would not go through the House after it returned from Committee because a solid block of people was determined that there would not be a crematorium on that site, a great deal of money and a great deal of the time of the House would have been saved. That would have improved the reputation of the House.
Tonight we have an opportunity to show that the House is a valuable safeguard for those who wish to make proposals which involve expenditure of public funds and
1190
which, although they may be good ideas, are badly thought out and presented. I hope that the House will reject the motion.
8.50 pm
Mr. Tim Janman: You may be intrigued, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a Member from Essex takes such a close interest in a revival motion which relates to the fine city of Southampton. If I may take a few seconds to explain, I was a resident of the city for almost six years. For a brief period I served on the city council. For those six years, I was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). I take this opportunity to send my best wishes and regards through my hon. Friend to all my friends in Southampton, especially those in the opposition group on the city council and the many people in the Conservative party with whom I worked so closely and successfully for so long. I am sure that my hon. Friend will pass on those regards.
Mr. Snape: It took long enough to say.
Mr. Janman: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he so graciously did to me, if he wishes to make any point about what I am saying.
In addition to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), it is important to stress that we are discussing not merely a revival motion but a revival motion for this Session. The whole crux of the debate is whether the House should see fit to revive a motion on a Bill which seeks to do something which will have a major, but not necessarily in any way positive, effect on the city of Southampton when it is clear that the overall feeling of the people of Southampton, expressed through different avenues—city councillors, county concillors and Members of Parliament—amounts to a democratic deficit, through whatever conduit one looks at the matter. There is clearly no proven democratic surplus in favour of the Bill coming back to the House.
On that basis, we should consider whether we wish to revive this motion when there is nowhere near unanimity in the city about the scheme. The Bill is specific. It would implement a specific rapid transit system in Southampton. As there is a wide range of views about the merits of the proposal in Southampton, it is worth spending some time on examining the reasons that lie behind the lack of unanimity.
I shall give six main reasons why there is so much discussion in Southampton, and no consensus, about whether the Bill should be revived. But there is one general reason. Two of my hon. Friends—one of whom is about to leave the Chamber and may wish to stay while I refer fleetingly to what he said—mentioned cities which are going ahead with or already have rapid transit systems.
My hon. Friend the Minister cited Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield—all British cities. Manchester and Sheffield are at least twice the size of Southampton, and Birmingham is between five and six times the size of Southampton. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) mentioned several cities. When I lived in Southampton, I lived not far from his constituency. I was only just a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Test. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside mentioned Toulouse, which is the third or fourth biggest city in France, with a population of well over half a million. He mentioned one

1191
or two other cities, and there was some debate about how accurate and detailed his knowledge of them was. Lille is considerably larger than Southampton.
The pertinent points about the two sets of examples given by my hon. Friends is that there is often a case for putting in some sort of rapid transit system in a city, irrespective of whether it is entirely privately funded, entirely publicly funded or funded with a mixture of finance. However, a certain concentration of population is necessary to make the scheme realistic.
In terms of population, Southampton is only just a city. I do not mean that disparagingly—I very much enjoyed the six years that I lived there—but its definition as a city or a big town is a borderline case. In conurbations the size of Southampton, a realistic proposal is rarely made for putting in a rapid transit system. In view of that, the proposal for Southampton would not be so bad if the proposed system served most of the city. It seeks to serve only a tiny area. I shall come to that later.
Furthermore, the proposed system does not use existing or old and disused British Rail track. It does not use natural transport corridors within the city. Unlike many other rapid transit systems which are running successfully, the Southampton scheme has not been initiated by the private sector. The whole idea has been initiated by the public sector—the Southampton city council. Those are some general reasons, as a preamble to my remarks, why I do not think it is realistic.
I come back to the reasons which underline the fact that there is a complete lack of unanimity in Southampton. Later I shall give the House some information about how one could construe that there is not in the city a democratic consensus in favour of the Bill being revived. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said, we are talking not just about a procedural matter but about whether we want the Bill to proceed, or whether we wish to extinguish it once and for all. If the House does not agree to revive the motion, we will effectively carry out the wish of the majority of the people in Southampton, who think that the rapid transit system should not proceed. Obviously it will not proceed if the House decides to extinguish this animal so that it does not continue to breathe.
Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend is on dangerous ground. I do not believe that any comprehensive survey has been done to find out whether people are for or against the proposal. Certainly anecdotal evidence gained from people in my constituency and in Southampton suggests that people are divided, but I think that there is a general feeling in favour.
I had the opportunity to talk to taxi drivers about it. The Southampton taxi consultative council, representing radio taxis, the Southampton Taxi Owners Association and Streamline Taxis, had a general discussion and generally came down in favour of what is proposed. But no quantitative analysis has been done. Even if there had been, I remind my hon. Friend that as an elected representative he is on dangerous ground. I remind him of Edmund Burke's dictum that we are here to use our judgment and that we betray rather than serve the people we represent if we sacrifice it to their opinion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are beginning to drift into a Second Reading debate. We are dealing with a procedural motion as to whether the Bill should be revived or not.
Mr. Janman: Of course taxi drivers would be in favour of a rapid transit system, because they would earn a lot of money by taking people from the outskirts of the city to the centre so that they could get on the thing to whirl them round the periphery of the city centre. I am sure that the cab drivers would be licking their lips in anticipation.
Mr. Snape rose—
Mr. Janman: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I want to answer more fully the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, who wishes to leave the Chamber. As a former resident of Southampton, I believe that the scheme is laughable. Not only is there no need for it, but its overall effect on the city will be negative in many ways.
As to the proof about whether or not there is clear, democratic consensus and unanimity, let me give my hon. Friend some pieces of evidence which show that there is no unanimity or consensus. A recent telephone survey by a leading newspaper in Southampton, which covered about 4,000 people, had a 60 per cent. response in opposition to the scheme, certainly in the form specified by the proposed legislation.
A petition has also been organised, and already it has 5,000 signatures. My hon. Friend will know, from his experience in the House and in politics generally, that that is a large petition. It is difficult to find people to go out and get signatures. The fact that 5,000 have already been raised is interesting. My hon. Friend may not be aware that a street survey carried out in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) showed that 88 per cent. of those interviewed did not want the scheme.
Mr. John Garrett: May I ask the hon. Gentleman about the telephone survey about which he was so keen? Can he tell the House whether the place of residence of those telephoning was established during the survey? Would he care to compare it with the survey carried out by the London School of Economics, which showed an overwhelming majority in favour? Will the hon. Gentleman give us more details about the telephone survey and the notoriously unreliable system of carrying out surveys?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At the risk of tedious repetition from the Chair, I remind the House once more that we are not discussing the merits of the Bill; we are discussing whether the Bill should be revived. I recognise fully that, in discussing that motion, it is necessary to refer to the Bill in order to construct an argument, but it is not in order to go into detail which would be in order on the Second Reading of the Bill, were we to reach it.
Mr. Janman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. I may be going into slightly too much detail in order to answer genuine interventions by colleagues.
May I recommend that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) directs his question to a newspaper called The Reporter, which incorporates the Southampton Guardian? From the name of the newspaper, I presume that most of the people who read it live within the city

1193
boundaries of Southampton. The newspaper says that the people who rang up were its readers. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 2,015 did not want the scheme and that only 1,743 did. It was The Reporter, No. 289, of Wednesday, 19 December 1990, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to consult the article. He could also contact the newspaper if he wants further details.
Mr. Michael Brown: As you rightly say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surveys showing the number of people for and against the proposal are a matter for Second Reading. But does not my hon. Friend agree that what is relevant to the motion today is the people who will be adversely affected by the project? Is it not right to consider people such as Mr. A. Godsby, whose cafe will be knocked down? There are 18 similar properties in the road in which he lives, and they would all be wiped away. Therefore, does my hon. Friend agree that, although it may not be appropriate to consider whether the majority are in favour of or against the proposal, we should consider those who will have their properties flattened and be put out of business?
Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) referred to additional public expenditure, and there will have to be a considerable number of compulsory purchase orders in order to force people living in a supposedly free society to vacate their properties, whether domestic or commercial, in order to allow this rapid transport system to pass over what was their property.
Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Janman: I will in a moment.
My hon. Friend's intervention reminds me of a well-known Southampton resident called Mr. Knox who has a flat near where the elevated section will go. He is worried that it will go through his front bedroom.
Mr. Snape: I am belatedly grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am listening to him with great care, as his arguments are always well marshalled and his cogent thoughts always benefit the House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) seems to be getting over-excited. To return to Mr. Knox and the cafe owner—
Mr. Michael Brown: It is going through his kitchen.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says that with a delightful giggle. I am sure that that is amusing, but if the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) can persuade his hon. Friend to relax for a second or two, perhaps I can have his attention.
These matters are vital. If we accept the motion tonight, the petitioners, who will presumably include those who are to lose their homes, will have every right to put their case before a Committee. But if Southampton city council decided to build a ring road or any other road around the city centre, it could bulldoze as many houses as it liked under the compulsory purchase order procedure without any reference to the House, a Committee stage or any democratic involvement by the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope). The reform of that procedure is long overdue. It applies only to public transport matters and to railway developments. A road development in the area could have gone ahead without any reference to the House.
Mr. Janman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his intellectual integrity and rigour to bear in the debate. Hon. Members will note with interest what he has said.
Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman understand it?
Mr. Janman: I do understand the hon. Gentleman. His west midlands accent is not too strong. I always take note of what he says.
I do not want to take up too much more time, as I want to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Test will have an opportunity to speak. Also, I am getting quite hungry. However, I have to say that, for six specific reasons, it would be better to reject this revival motion and thereby kill the Bill now. The six reasons—which are also the reasons for the lack of democratic consensus in Southampton—are: the cost, the damaging effects on the environment, public opposition, the damage to the city's fabric, the limitations of the proposed system, and the lack of proven need for the system as devised.
On the question of the provision of public money, we have already had a hint from the Government that taxpayers' money could be involved if the scheme were ever to see the light of day. The city council has consistently refused to write into the Bill a guarantee that public money would not be involved. Of course, local authority public money comes from community charge payers. Socialist councils seem to forget that they do not have any money of their own, that the money they spend belongs to their citizens. Therefore, any fanciful talk about funding such a scheme with money from the private sector, come what may, is, to say the least, misleading.
The route that has been chosen is absolutely useless. It skirts the city centre, connecting a lot of places that in themselves are fairly meaningless. If one looks at a map, one sees that it follows a sort of inner ring road. The job that this rapid transit system would do, at a cost of £40 million—probably £45 million by the time it was actually built—could probably be done by a few minibuses. The amount of money involved would be very much less, and such a system would be far more profitable.
The whole idea is deeply unpopular, but, in that regard, I do not intend to repeat the comments that I made following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. There is clear evidence that a large number of people in Southampton are against this system. An elevated track would be disliked by the elderly, the handicapped and mothers with young children in buggies or prams.
The system is opposed by a number of environmental groups in the city—Southampton Commons and Parks Protection Society, the Friends of Old Southampton, the City of Southampton Society, Southampton Conservation and Southampton Environmental Forum. Those bodies certainly want this revival motion blocked. They do not want to see 30-ft concrete pillars around the old part of the city centre, in front of the old city walls. They do not want the negative impact that it would have on the many parks in the city, with the consequent loss of flora and fauna and the undermining of the peace and tranquillity that one can enjoy on a summer Sunday afternoon.
There would be general pollution and increased traffic congestion, with people driving into the city to use the system. Taxi drivers in particular will want to see it there. It would destroy parts of the existing urban fabric, and

1195
generally create noise pollution, and damage many parts of the city, including the waterfront and other sensitive and historic areas.
Does it make transport sense? No. As I said earlier, and as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), it would not be integrated with British Rail. Southampton has eight stations. The system would not be integrated with bus or ferry services. Access to it would be mainly by car, so the volume of road traffic would be increased, rather than decreased, despite the fact that a decrease in the amount of traffic is what one normally assumes to be the objective of a rapid transit system.
I come back to the very important question of cost and of who is going to meet it. Already, £0·75 million has been wasted on this absurd monstrosity. As I said earlier, quoting the Southern Evening Echo, a secret memo, about which the city council would not have wanted the public to know, says that a further £176,000 of community charge payers' money would have to be spent if we were simply to allow this revival motion to pass. The construction cost has been estimated at £45 million, and the railway would need to achieve 11 million rides a year to make a profit —that in a city of only 220,000 people. The arithmetic does not add up, and the statistics are laughable.
I explained that the city council refused to give an absolute guarantee, to be written into the Bill, that the system would be totally privately funded. It knows in its heart of hearts that the scheme is not economically viable and could never be profitable, and that it is the poor old community charge payers who would have to pick up the tab for that white—or should I say red?—elephant.
The council's current position of intent is meaningless, unless it is prepared to inscribe it into the Bill. Because of the lack of enthusiasm and absence of unanimity, the system is unlikely to secure the patronage of the 35,000 passengers a day that it would need to be profitable. Southampton is a fine city and a major regional centre, but it has competition from Bournemouth, Portsmouth, and Winchester. Although Southampton has some tourist attractions, it is mainly an industrial city and is not a place that the public necessarily think of as one offering tourist attractions. I welcome the efforts made by the city council when I lived in Southampton, and now, to improve the city's appeal, but it is fanciful to claim that a little train travelling around the city's perimeter will make any difference to the number of tourists.
No developers or major retail stores are committed to the scheme, and it seems unlikely that they ever will be. The project would waste community charge payers' money; it would be silly of the House to agree to a motion concerning a rapid transit system that no one really wants. The city's two Members of Parliament, who are elected by a much bigger turnout of the voters than are Labour city councillors, also oppose it.
The scheme has been conceived by the public sector, and is not the product of an entrepreneurial venture from the private sector. It has sprung from the womb of public empire building, which is typical of Southampton's Labour council. The proposal is unpopular now, and the system would be even more unpopular once the
1196
population started living with its environmental effects. The system would be an appalling burden on the people of Southampton. I ask the House to defeat the motion.
9.14 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have had something to do with private legislation over the past five Sessions, since 1986. I appeared before the House on behalf of the promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill with a revival motion on not one, but two occasions. Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recall the basis on which the Opposition made their case against that legislation—it was on their opposition as a matter of principle to revival motions. How they have stood on their heads tonight.
We heard a different story this time from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) from when he spoke against the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Oh what a difference when he appeared before the House to talk about the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Oh what a difference when the shadow Leader of the House responded to the revival motion that I moved on that occasion, two and a half years ago. There he stood at the Dispatch Box, denouncing the motion to the House, and asking how a promoter, who had already used up the time of one or other House of Parliament, dare come back to waste the time of the House for yet another Session. Yes, they are the guilty men tonight—with their previous attitude about matters of principle and revival motions.
Mr. Frank Dobson: He has gone round the bend.
Mr. Brown: I heard what the hon. Gentleman muttered under his breath. He said that I had gone round the bend. He is the one who has done a somersault. He is standing on his head. Two years ago during the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, when he was the shadow Leader of the House, he stood at the Dispatch Box and said that, as a matter of principle, the House should never agree to such motions, regardless of whether the Bill had been considered in Committee.
Therefore, I expect to see the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, if not the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), in the Lobby with us tonight. I shall study Hansard closely tomorrow to see whether he has been consistent.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East also participated in the debates on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and used the argument of principle against a revival motion.
Mr. Snape: I am sorry to upset these flights of fancy —if not oratory—but will the hon. Gentleman consider the argument that I put to him earlier? This Bill is promoted by a democratically elected local authority and has completed all its stages in another place. The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was promoted by a board of directors and it had not gone through any procedures in another place. I hope that he will accept that there is a difference between local councils of any, or all, political parties and paid directors. That was the difference that I pointed out to him earlier, and so far he has failed to tackle that argument.
Mr. Brown: I shall let the hon. Gentleman have his argument. However, I wonder why he voted against the

1197
revival motion for the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill for generating stations in my constituency. I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also voted against it. That Bill could not be promoted by a local authority, but had to he promoted by the electricity companies. That Bill also passed through the House of Lords. During that revival motion I said that we should assent to it because it was the first opportunity for the House to consider the Bill. All those Opposition Members who are normally aficionados of revival motions when I move them, who incidentally seem to have disappeared tonight—I do not know where they have gone—
Mr. Dobson: They did not know that the hon. Gentleman was going to speak.
Mr. Brown: It is always very pleasant to have a large audience from the Opposition. I get quite used to it. With a bit of luck the Benches will fill up quickly in a moment when hon. Members see my name on the screen.
However, to return to the issue of principle, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has come up with a novel idea. He says that the House should agree to a revival motion if a Bill is promoted by a local authority because it has some basis in democracy, but not if the Bill is not promoted by a local authority.
In the case of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill, as local authorities do not run those organisations, they cannot promote them.
Opposition Members have thrown that principle at me in the past few years, and now they should get a taste of their own medicine. For tonight's purposes we should put their argument to the House, and ensure that they have an opportunity to vote on the same basis on which they voted before. We shall see what happens.
As you have rightly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we must not consider the Second Reading of the Bill tonight. What we must consider is the way in which the Bill is being presented. It is normal procedure for the promoters of a private Bill to engage parliamentary agents—in fact, they are required to do so. I make no complaint about that; all parliamentary agents, including those representing the promoters of this Bill, are well-respected and highly regarded organisations.
This Bill, however, has more than parliamentary agents to assist it. One would expect the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) to be in the Chamber, bearing in mind the reprimands that were thrown at me from both sides of the House—and, I believe, from the Chair on one occasion—when I was not in the Chamber during a debate on a private Bill of which I was in charge. But I see that the hon. Gentleman has returned. I hope that the sponsors of this Bill will engage in the sort of behaviour that was expected of me by the House, especially the Opposition. We must ensure that even-handedness and fair play are maintained.
It is, of course, right and proper that a Member of Parliament should also represent the promoters, presenting their case to the House, and the hon. Member for Norwich, South did that. But I wonder what the House would have thought if, when I moved the revival motion for the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, an Opposition Member had held in his hand the plan of campaign drawn up by a public relations outfit explaining how to buy off
1198
hon. Members supporting the Southampton rapid transit proposals. I think that there would have been goodness knows what to pay. Opposition Members would have had plenty to say about public relations companies being up to their ears in it, and so forth.
I have news for the House. I have here a document suggesting the best way of securing support in the House, submitted to Southampton city council. It says: "Target Members of Parliament. Target the city's Back Bench MP James Hill." I do not know how you feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the idea of targeting my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill).
Mr. Dobson: Scarcely precision bombing.
Mr. Brown: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment: he is mentioned in the document as well. Others, it says, include "Christopher Chope"—my hon. Friend the Minister. And so it goes on, with a litany of other hon. Members who could be nobbled.
The next part of the document deals with how to nobble Ministers and their civil service advisers. It names the relevant Departments as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry, and suggests that the key political figure is "Mr. Michael Portillo, Minister for Public Transport". I hope that Southampton city council will wonder whether it has received value for money, given the out-of-date advice with which it has been provided.
According to the document, the Transport Department's political adviser, Elizabeth Buchanan, should be approached. And so it goes on. Good heavens! I see that the Minister to whom I am Parliamentary Private Secretary is also mentioned, on the ground that— according to the document—he represents the Department of Trade and Industry. For the past three months, I have been going to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to assist the Minister there.
The document suggests that leading civil servants may also need to be approached to prepare the way for a ministerial meeting. Have his civil servants been leaning on my hon. Friend the Minister? Has he received any request for a ministerial meeting from those civil servants, on behalf of Southampton city council? I think that we need answers to those questions.
I am making a serious point. As well as the normal procedures, we have seen an outfit coming into play in the belief that it is possible to mislead the House. That may be why Southampton city council has been unwise enough to launch the revival motion: it imagines that it is a simple matter of engaging parliamentary agents—but I think, M r. Deputy Speaker, that the time has come to discuss how it was that the hon. Member for Norwich, South came to be the Bill's sponsor.
The document continued:
"We have already advised that the ideal Member to sponsor the Bill is James Hill. We are aware that he has been subjected to considerable pressure and that it may be that the best that can be achieved is for him to be persuaded to adopt a neutral stance."
The idea of my hon. Friend adopting a neutral stance is fanciful.
"In the event that Mr. Hill cannot be won over an alternative sponsor will need to be found."
A list of names follows, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). He spoke, very sensibly, on the motion. The list goes on and on. The document continued:

1199
"Whoever is chosen, a major priority of the project team will be to ensure that a proper brief is prepared with all the relevant issues adequately addressed.
I hope that the hon. Member for Norwich, South was properly briefed when he spoke this evening. His information does not seem to square with some of the information that we have received.
Mr. John Garrett: I can write my own speeches.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that he can write his own speeches. Southampton charge payers will want to know why on earth thousands and thousands of pounds are being spent on briefings and speaking notes when the hon. Gentleman admits that he can write his own speeches. The community charge payers represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Test are having to fund all this.
I should never have been a party to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill if that sort of thing had gone on then. If any Opposition Member had discovered that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was being dealt with in the way that this Bill is being handled, he would have demanded to know what was going on behind the scenes —all the funny business and all the nobbling of Ministers, civil servants, special advisers and my hon. Friends. Finally, they had to nobble an Opposition Member to sponsor this Bill. They would have asked what was in it for me and what the Register of Members' Interests showed. It is funny how silent they all were.
Mr. Dobson: Would the hon. Gentleman have advised Southampton city council to do what Associated British Ports did, with his acquiescence—to organise a champagne party for everyone who was willing to stay up to vote for the Bill?
Mr. Brown: I thought the hon. Gentleman would come to that. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when champagne was served to any of my hon. Friends who were kind enough to speak in the debate it was paid for by me out of my own pocket. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has mixed up that Bill with another Bill. I think that he meant to refer to the Felixtowe Dock and Railway Bill of five or six years ago. There were great celebrations both in the House and even more in my constituency when Royal Assent was given last year to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Act. However, Associated British Ports did not pay for the champagne; I paid for it. One or two Labour Members were spied in the Smoking Room with half a glass of champagne in their hands, poured out by me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Champagne parties and Bills of many Sessions ago may be interesting, but they are hardly relevant to the proceedings this evening.
Mr. Brown: Where are the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)? They would have had a great deal to say about funny business behind the scenes and about public relations companies nobbling Members of Parliament and Ministers. Where are they? Perhaps the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East can tell me.
Mr. Snape: I assure the hon. Gentleman that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) nor
1200
my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) are drinking champagne, whether provided by the promoters or anyone else.
Mr. Brown: I do not doubt that for a moment. However, I would have expected them to be showing concern about the way in which this private Bill is being brought before the House. I would have expected them to express the same concerns as I have been expressing. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were here, I am sure that he would have been apoplectic and unable to contain his rage—just as I and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Test feel. We are extremely concerned at the way in which the Bill is being promoted.
I have given clear reasons why, on a matter of principle, we should not allow the revival motion to proceed. I have taken some leaves out of the Opposition's book and I hope that they will vote with me on the basis that all the arguments that I have deployed have been theirs on previous occasions.
9.35 pm
Mr. James Hill: This has been an engaging debate. Unfortunately, we have not heard much from the Opposition. I shall try to keep within the parameters of the debate. This is a revival motion. When one hears that word one imagines that the animal is nearly dead. This can be kept alive for ever by throwing community charge payers' money at it. Even if the Bill is defeated this year, another, could easily be brought forward. There is a phalanx of advisers, public relations men, solicitors, attorneys and parliamentary agents. Everything on which the £750,000 has been spent could be itemised, but I do not intend to do so because there is enough evidence without humiliating hon. Members who have been drawn into this by the lobby of the House.
I have some papers that were given to Southampton city council so that it would know all about the scheme. The instructions to the council say:
"There is no compulsion that the system must be built should the Bill receive the Royal Assent. However, Parliament requires to be satisfied that the proposed system is of sound concept in all respects and that Southampton city council is committed to the ultimate construction of the Southampton rapid transit system."
We have heard that the council is not committed to it. If it cannot find the investors, it will do nothing. Because the council could not achieve political harmony in its council chamber, all the money will be wasted.
I have begged the Bill's promoters for the past two years to withdraw the Bill and try to achieve political harmony and work towards a transport system that will serve the whole city. We should work on those lines, not on this esoteric construction in the sky which will simply look nice for the tourists. We need something for the people who have to travel to work in Southampton every day whether it is sunshine or showers.
The instructions go on:
"The parliamentary agent has advised that a large majority vote by the city council in favour of depositing the Bill should help the passage of the Bill through Parliament."
As I have said, we need co-operation.
"A small majority vote in favour or a vote split along party lines would cause concern in Parliament as would only limited support in the city for the Bill and the system."
We have heard that there is a split on party lines.
The company has already been set up and there is a horde of people who may be public relations people, a

1201
project team, advisers or consultants. The Bill contains the power for the council to create a private sector company to run the system and alternative powers for it to dispose of or franchise the operation of the system to another body.
If the council is unable to find investors—I doubt that it will be able to do so—what is its only alternative? 1 t must use enhanced land values in other parts of the city to finance the system. It did that for Citybus, which is now virtually owned by the local authority, and it will do exactly the same with this railway system.
Everyone agrees that the environment is a serious matter. There are five environment groups in Southampton. The Green party and the Liberal Democrats are against the rapid transit system. Labour may care to ignore Conservatives and say that they have no conception of the environment, but almost every environmentalist in Southampton is against the Bill. However, they can speak for themselves; they are very capable people.
The financial structure of the system is probably its most worrying aspect for Southampton's 207,000 citizens. We did not even know what it would cost until the House of Lords insisted on an estimate of expense. I have it here, and it is dated 30 November 1988. The elevated guideway is estimated at £12 million, easements at £2 million, stations at £5 million, one or two little odds and ends at only about £1 million—hardly worth mentioning—cars and vehicles at £14·4 million and purchase of land, minerals and permanent rights of way at £9·9 million. I have been hearing that it will cost only between £35 million and £45 million. That estimate, which was made two years ago, is £59·4 million. Its cost must have increased by at least 10 per cent.
We have been fighting a Bill about which only half-truths have been told. We were told something to keep us happy. The people of Southampton were not aware of what this system would do to the city. As I have asked many times, would any Member of Parliament, including my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Covin), allow such a train to be built in Winchester, Salisbury or perhaps even in Romsey? These trains are not suitable for areas of medieval England.
The Briway system could eventually cover the whole of Southampton, but not on an elevated track, which is three times as expensive as any other means of transporting trains. Hon. Members should recall their council days, when such expense always had to be pruned. No account is taken of the expense of this system. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was reported as saying at the Labour party conference that light railways have to be subsidised or they do not work. He gave the impression to a reporter from the Southern Evening Echo—he may deny it—that it was best for the Labour council group to wait until it had taken office, when it might be able to help with a pretty big subsidy. The hon. Gentleman broke into print—
Mr. Prescott rose—
Mr. Hill: I do not know whether the story was true or not, but that is what was reported. Anyone can say, several months later—
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman must know from his local paper that I corrected the story in a letter to the paper
1202
and in a letter to the council. I said that the reporter had got it wrong and the paper accepted that. As the hon. Gentleman must know, a statement was put in the press.
Mr. Hill: Indeed, I wrote a letter about the accusation against the hon. Gentleman. I knew that what he was basically saying was good socialist policy and he cannot deny it. It is good socialist policy to say that small railways do not pay, so we should subsidise them. That is what he was really saying at the conference.
We have heard a lot about finance. Whether the railway is subsidised is neither here nor there. We have been told that there will be some big investors. The local authority led us right up the garden path by telling us that Peter de Savary who, at that time, had just bought Eastleigh airport was going to provide a railway into Southampton to meet up with the people mover. Most of us know Peter de Savary pretty well. If he does not get planning permission, he moves on. In this case he received planning permission for Eastleigh and made a great business success of it.
Mr. Colvin: Then he moved on.
Mr. Hill: As my hon. Friend says, he moved on.
I wondered who would be the biggest investor in Southampton to think of taking on part or even the whole of the project. I asked the port manager of Associated British Ports Holdings about that and he in turn got in touch with Sir Keith Stuart. A letter was sent to me on 14 January 1991 which stated:
"Dear James, You asked me to let you know ABP's position so far as the proposed Southampton rapid transit project is concerned. It would seem that the project has quite some way to go"—
I agree with that wholeheartedly—
"before achieving tangible support from those organisations who might have a direct interest. ABP would be indirectly affected by the proposed rapid transit system but we do not have any significant involvement with the project at this time."
Again, that is a bit of a smokescreen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside talked about drawing up a prospectus. The local authority has drawn up a prospectus. It has tried to get money from investors, but it has failed abysmally. It has about £60,000 to do a little project. If people in the market place were considering putting money on the prospectus that Southampton city council has put forward, they would be well advised to go to their solicitors immediately because there is no security in this venture.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has just arrived, on time as always. I hope that he will not try—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: One thing is certain. I have not come out of the Bar as I can tell that the hon. Gentleman has, with his red face.
Mr. Hill: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will protect me from the accusation that I have come out of the Bar. I have been here all evening from 7 pm.
Mr. Colvin: It is not possible in law to write a prospectus without having secured the passage of a Bill through Parliament. That means that any so-called prospectus is not worth the paper on which it is written and cannot be judged as a prospectus.
Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend has pointed out, as he did before, that no prospectus can be written until the passage of the Bill has been secured. But that has not stopped the

1203
council trying to obtain money from almost everyone. When I first discussed the financial structure and all the various people clinging to it and sucking the substance out of it, it occurred to me that Arthur Daley might describe the scheme as "a nice little earner". It has been just that. Some £750,000 has been spent, much of it in officers' time. I believe that £33,000 has gone to a public relations firm, and a tremendous amount—more than £200,000—has gone to consultants. The whole thing is a mess of pottage. We must try to get shot of it tonight.
This is the first occasion on which we have debated the present Bill, but the more I read of what the local authority does, the more disturbed I become. I was born in the city of Southampton, and for two or three generations my family has admired that city. It is a terrible thing to see what the local council has done to it. I even asked the other day whether we should get the Prince of Wales down as a consultant to look at what is happening to our city. In architectural language, it is the big shed syndrome, and every big shed in Southampton looks as though it will not be there in 20 years' time. There is no planning as such.
The council has pushed ahead with the railway scheme. The difficulty is that it was allowed to get its way because there did not seem to be anyone who could stop it while it was telling half-truths. Now we are getting down to the nitty gritty. We have heard a lot of truth tonight.
Most hon. Members present will think that this is a parochial issue with which they should not get involved. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for supporting me tonight. It is as well that we are to vote on the matter shortly, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to go a little wider than is usual on a debate on a revival motion.
Mr. Richard Holt: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned with Southampton and with the Bill, but it may interest him to know that the county of Cleveland has already spent more than £750,000 in respect of a similar project in Teesside which has not even got as far as the project that we are discussing. That shows how community charge payers' money is being squandered the length and breadth of the land.
Mr. Hill: I thank my hon. Friend.
I suppose that, in the end, every politician—whether he is elected by 25 per cent. of the electors or by 70 to 75 per cent., as is usual for most Members of Parliament—must safeguard the financial interests of those who put him here. If I were called upon to defend what I have done this evening, I would have to say that I have done it specifically to protect my constituents who pay the community charge.
9.53 pm
Mr. Peter Fry: As I explained in an intervention earlier, I am a member of the Select Committee that has been examining the whole question of light rail schemes, which will shortly be producing a report. Obviously I cannot say what will be in that report as that would be most improper. However, a great deal of the evidence has been made public, and 1 wish to place on record what I consider to be a fundamental point.
In an intervention I pointed out that light rail schemes are now being produced because they are the flavour of the month. Absolutely no regard is being paid to the amount of public money that is being poured out to consultants
1204
and others in order to produce schemes without ascertaining whether they are the right schemes for the area in question.
Far more important in relation to the House is the fact that, if we are to have every local authority producing its scheme and trying to promote its Bill, that will make it increasingly difficult for those authorities that have schemes that will work and be accepted to find the time to go through the parliamentary process.
So, in my submission, those who recklessly bring forward proposals such as this are doing no service to public transport in this country, to light rail schemes or to community charge payers. In effect, they are wasting Parliament's time when we might be concerning ourselves with much more important matters.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 138.

Division No. 55]

[9.55 pm

AYES

Allen, Graham

Lamond, James

Barron, Kevin

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

McNamara, Kevin

Bottomley, Peter

Madden, Max

Boyes, Roland

Marek, Dr John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Meacher, Michael

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Michael, Alun

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Cousins, Jim

O'Neill, Martin

Cryer, Bob

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Dewar, Donald

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dixon, Don

Prescott, John

Dobson, Frank

Quin, Ms Joyce

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Richardson, Jo

Foster, Derek

Rogers, Allan

Fraser, John

Ruddock, Joan

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Snape, Peter

Golding, Mrs Llin

Soley, Clive

Gould, Bryan

Spearing, Nigel

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Walley, Joan

Grocott, Bruce

Wilson, Brian

Haynes, Frank

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Ingram, Adam

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Amess, David

Colvin, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Conway, Derek

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Cope, Rt Hon John

Ashby, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Curry, David

Beggs, Roy

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bellingham, Henry

Dorrell, Stephen

Bellotti, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Body, Sir Richard

Eggar, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Emery, Sir Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Fallon, Michael

Bowis, John

Favell, Tony

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fishburn, John Dudley

Brazier, Julian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Burns, Simon

Forth, Eric

Butterfill, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Fry, Peter

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gale, Roger

Carrington, Matthew

Gill, Christopher

Carttiss, Michael

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Cash, William

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Chapman, Sydney

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Chope, Christopher

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

1205

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Patnick, Irvine

Ground, Patrick

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hague, William

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Portillo, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hanley, Jeremy

Price, Sir David

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Redwood, John

Harris, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Riddick, Graham

Hill, James

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Holt, Richard

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Hordern, Sir Peter

Sackville, Hon Tom

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Shersby, Michael

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Sims, Roger

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Hunter, Andrew

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Irvine, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Jack, Michael

Stern, Michael

Jackson, Robert

Stevens, Lewis

Kilfedder, James

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Knapman, Roger

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Thorne, Neil

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Thurnham, Peter

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Tracey, Richard

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Maclean, David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mans, Keith

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Waller, Gary

Mates, Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Wells, Bowen

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Widdecombe, Ann

Miller, Sir Hal

Winterton, Nicholas

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Wood, Timothy

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Neubert, Sir Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Mr. Michael Brown and

Paice, James

Mr. Tim Janman.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask you a question about the Division. You will remember that for many years now the Government have claimed from the Dispatch Box neutrality on private Bills and stated that they would support any private Bill in a Division. You will recognise that in the Division tonight even members of the War Cabinet voted in the No Lobby to defeat a private Bill. Have you or the Clerks been notified of the reason why the Government destroyed the Bill tonight when previously they always claimed that their neutrality meant that they would support any private Bill before the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the whole House know that the way in which right hon. and hon. Members vote is not a matter for the Chair—and a good thing, too.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tonight we have seen once again the farce of the way in which private business is conducted in the House. Have you been notified of any intention to bring forward reform of private business at an early stage? It must be in everyone's mind what a farce it is for the War Cabinet to have to adjourn so that its members can come to vote on a private Bill. It is high time we got the new procedure into use and did away with this farcical procedure.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to read tomorrow's Hansard. In my hearing the Leader of the House dealt at length with the matter during business questions.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you cast light on the extraordinary suggestion that members of the War Cabinet have broken off their deliberations to come here to wreck a private Bill sponsored by a local authority to improve public transport in Southampton? Are you in a position to say whether the ideological crackpottery of the Conservatives has been taken to that length? Can someone tell us what sort of message is sent to the people serving in the Gulf when the order of priorities means that members of the Government come here specially to defeat a public transport proposal for Southampton?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The way in which right hon. and hon. Members vote has nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There have been attempts by the Government continually to obtain the consent and support of everyone for the war in the Gulf. Yet tonight the ideological prejudices and vendettas of the Government against a Labour-controlled local authority, which is promoting a private Bill through the procedure that it is bound to follow, have meant that they have broken off a War Cabinet meeting to come to the House to vote on the Bill. We should have a statement about the circumstances. Has any member of the War Cabinet intimated to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or asked your permission to make a statement to the House about the circumstances in which they place petty vindictive political advantage over what they consider to be the interests of the nation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no request for a statement. We must now get on with the business.

Parliamentary Pensions
10.11 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That this House endorses the proposals for improvements in Members' Pensions and Scheme Benefits to be contained in regulations under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.
Earlier today we had the Second Reading of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill. That dealt largely with the pensions, salaries and allowances of Ministers and office-holders. We now turn to the parliamentary pension scheme itself. There has inevitably been some overlap between the two in that several of the issues legitimately for this debate have already been raised in the previous one. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) quite understandably covered the most important ones because they are of greatest interest to Opposition Members. I make no complaint about that. I understand fully why he did it and I was almost tempted to do it myself. I hope that it will save time now, because it means that I can be brief.
Until the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987 was enacted, the scheme was contained in statute. But that Act gave us the power to make changes by regulation. It is a requirement of the Act that I should consult the trustees on any proposed changes to the scheme, and my predecessor and I have been in close touch with them on the regulations before the House.
I should like now to pay a proper tribute—I had to move very fast at the end of the earlier debate, so was unable to do so—to the trustees and to their chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), for the sterling work which they put in on behalf of us all as Members of the House. I also join in the tribute to those in the Fees Office whom the right hon. Gentleman listed for what they do for us on pensions. I also thank the Treasury officials—I know that the Fees Office staff greatly value their assistance. I am pleased to be able to say that the regulations have been accepted by the trustees.
To move from statute to secondary legislation as a means of making changes to the parliamentary pension scheme means that the House may only reject or accept the relevant regulations. Because, however, of the need to be sure that the House has the opportunity to comment on any amendments, the Paymaster General, in May 1987, gave an undertaking that the regulations would be set before the House in draft so that hon. Members might make their views known and have them taken into account. That is the purpose of the motion. The regulations themselves are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The regulations make certain improvements in Members' early retirment arrangements and some changes in relation to Members of the European Parliament. They provide that Members who have accrued the maximum pension will cease to make contributions. They double the death in service gratuity in a way that will cover all those Members who, sadly, have died during this Parliament. They increase widows' and widowers' pensions from half rate to five eighths and they empower the trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund to appoint an agent to acquire and dispose of the assets of the fund on
1208
their behalf. I doubt whether the House would want me to cover them all in detail, but I should be happy to cover points at the end of the debate.
As the right hon. Member for Salford, East said, the proposals on widows' pensions, death in service benefits and the problem of excess contributions are all common to many other schemes. They are fair and modest and are to be welcomed generally. Others are technical and come into the category of what I might describe as tidying up.
I would, however, like to make two general points. First, the main benefits operate from 6 April 1988. That I believe is right. It means that they start broadly from the point at which the TSRB recommended them, and the Government accepted the recommendation. It would not have been fair in any way to disadvantage the widows of colleagues who, sadly, are no longer with us because of delays for other reasons in implementing the decision.
Secondly, I want it to be clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) pointed out in the earlier debate, that the benefits are being funded from within the scheme itself. As he said, they effectively come from the last actuarial surplus. The reason for stopping at a five eighths widows' pension is that that, together with the other improvements, exhausted the surplus. Hon. Members will want to be aware that if and when the surplus is exhausted—I say if and when—contributions would have to rise to pay for those benefits.
Mr. Ray Powell: In the earlier debate we talked about surpluses and the Treasury's contribution. I understand that if we had a surplus the Treasury's contribution would be less. Therefore, would the surpluses have been available if the Treasury had made a proper contribution and not the 4·5 per cent. that it contributes now?
Mr. MacGregor: The system was operated according to the present rules. However, as a result of discussions, there was some contribution to benefits as well as the change that was made to the Treasury contribution. The hon. Gentleman will know from our earlier debate that we are now proposing to take that issue to the TSRB. We explored that in some detail.
Judging from the representations that I have received and the comments earlier this evening of my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), to whom I listened carefully, the main point of contention left relates to former MEPs. Let me be clear what the issue is about. The background is that we have two pretty well identical pension schemes for MPs and MEPs. We are proposing to allow years as an MEP to count as service in the House for the purpose of the early retirement scheme in future and vice versa. What we agree to do here we will also implement for the MEP scheme. In other words, the symmetry will be maintained.
The only question is whether the years of service in the other Parliament should be those after the point at which the regulations are approved, or whether all years of service in either place should be included when an MEP comes here or an MP goes to the European Parliament.
That is a narrow issue, peculiar and particular to the parliamentary pension schemes. It is important to stress that. It is not an issue which ranges more widely to other pension schemes or arrangements. The point is also a fine

1209
one and arguments can be advanced on either side. The cost will have to be met from the fund and it must be very small.
I do not want to go into all the details this evening if I can avoid doing so. I hope that it is sufficient for me to say that, on balance, I am prepared to look sympathetically at the representations that I have received and my objective will be to accommodate them.
Finally, I should say something about the costs of these measures. The additional cost of all these changes to the total standard contribution is about 2·25 per cent. The total standard contribution, on current estimates, would need to rise, were it not for the surplus, to 22·25 per cent. As I made clear in my speech earlier this evening, one disadvantage of the approach to funding the scheme which the trustees have said they favour is that Members' contributions could fluctuate—perhaps wildly—and if the total contribution were to increase to pay for extra benefits, that cost would automatically be split, pro rata, between right hon. and hon. Members and the Exchequer. We do not need to take decisions on that now. We shall, of course, have an opportunity to take stock of the position after the next Government Actuary's department report is published and when the TSRB has reported. I intend then to hold a debate, which will allow the House to express its views on both reports.
As I said earlier, we need now to get the new arrangements into operation so that the benefits can be paid. Once the House has expressed its opinion on these regulations, I intend to lay them formally and they will come into force 21 days later. I commend the motion to the House.
10.22 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I do not want to delay the House unduly. However, there are a few points that need to be mentioned. I refer, in particular, to the basis on which our pensions are calculated. Some years ago, it was recommended that our salaries should be based on a certain civil service spine. Then the TSRB suggested that we should receive 85 per cent. of the salaries on that spine. In other words, we were to get 15 per cent. less than we expected. In addition, we had to make a pension contribution of 9 per cent., whereas civil servants, including some Treasury officials who were pressing for the system that was to be applied to us, and whose salary scale was close to ours, had a non-contributory pension scheme. We were told that it was a question of what part of the spine the civil servants were on.
We are losing out on two counts. First, whereas civil servants have a non-contributory pension scheme, we have to pay 9 per cent. Our salaries would be higher were it not for the fact that those of civil servants are not reduced by way of pension contributions. Secondly, we receive only 85 per cent. of the civil servants' rate. It is time that these issues were examined in great depth and detail, and a look should be taken at recommendations that have been made in the past. I recommend that we should be put on the scale of first secretary or secretary.
For the first time ever, the Government are providing for ministerial redundancy pay. Indeed, Ministers and others will receive two pensions. In this context, let us consider the obvious inequities of the resettlement grant for Members of Parliament generally. Surely common justice demands that those inequities be removed before
1210
redundancy pay for Ministers is introduced. Why should it be so simple to introduce legislation to benefit yourself, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, Ministers and others? Why should that group have pensions paid immediately, whereas ordinary Members of Parliament must wait for recommendations to go to the TSRB?
Mr. MacGregor: The Bill is based on the TSRB's recommendations of two years ago—but I am proposing, on resettlement grounds, that the TSRB should reconsider that aspect.
Mr. Powell: I thought that I had emphasised that it would be a simple matter for you to institute. It seems to me rather selfish that you—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Powell: I mentioned you, Mr. Speaker, because you would be covered by the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, it seems selfish to introduce that benefit for Ministers and others, whereas the rest of us will have to wait.
I accept the point made about the TSRB, but I remain sceptical because we are all under the impression that we would be on a spine with the civil servants, but then we learned from the TSRB report that the proportion of salary allowed was 85 per cent. and not 100 per cent.
I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, but the 9 per cent. that we pay into the scheme and the Treasury's miserly 4·4 per cent. should be re-examined, so that the Treasury's contribution is at least compatible to that which would be made by a private business outside the House.
10.25 pm
Mr. Peter Fry: I want to avoid covering old ground and delaying the House unduly, but I feel strongly not only at a personal level but on behalf of many Members of Parliament, past and present. The House should record its gratitude for the work done by the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and its thanks for the clarity of the proposals from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in trying to achieve progress. This issue is one that tends to be long neglected, but the only people who suffer are Members of Parliament, when they retire.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) clearly spelt out the reasons for the mess in which we find ourselves. He knows full well that it was a late-night deal, cobbled together because the House would not accept the recommendations on right hon. and hon. Members' pay —and it has created a number of complications.
It is relevant to make comparisons with schemes available to others. There can hardly be a scheme anywhere else in the country in which the employer's contribution is half that made by the employee, which places us in a special category. Either we can trust the contributions made by the Treasury and right hon. arid hon. Members, or we must look for improvements to the existing scheme.
Some might ask why the scheme should be improved, because Members of Parliament are, in comparison with many others, reasonably well paid. Despite the improvements made in recent years, many right hon. and hon. Members may be surprised to learn how small a

1211
percentage of their final pay they will receive as a pension when they retire. If I am fortunate to be re-elected and to reach my 65th birthday, I will have been a Member of Parliament for 26 years. One might imagine that length of service would entitle one to a full pension, but even after buying the extra number of pension scheme years that I am allowed, my pension will reach only 52 per cent. of my final pay.
Why are Members of Parliament different from people in other occupations? I shall try to give the Leader of the House a strong reason.
Earlier this evening I was talking to a colleague, who pointed out that when he came to the House he was earning twice the salary of a Member of Parliament. He had reached that moment in life when he was starting to earn a good salary and to progress, but he voluntarily gave it up to accept what was effectively half pay. Some people would say that that was his choice. But, just as in the age of noblesse oblige, I believe that an employer should be judged in the way that he treats his servants. Therefore, the Government should be judged on how it pays those who give public service. If we give excellent public service pensions to the civil service, on a non-contributory basis, surely we deserve some consideration when we contribute 9 per cent. of our pay.
A large number of hon. Members have given many years service, and have deliberately given up the opportunity to earn a lot more money. That peculiarity should be recognised. Although it has been said that we should not make comparisons with other Parliaments in other parts of the world, many of them recognise that relationship, and have a much shorter qualifying period before a Member of Parliament can obtain a full pension. I hope that that will be considered.
Although I welcome the increase in the widow's pension, I cannot for the life of me understand why we have not gone for the full two thirds widow's pension. That is allowed under the present tax regulations and is accepted in every modern pension scheme, but we deliberately pitch the widow's pension a bit below that level. It is not us who will suffer, but our widows—those wives who have to put up with a Member of Parliament as a husband and suffer all the privations and problems that wives often do. If there is any area where we should do the maximum that we can, then it is in helping the widows of former hon. Members. When this issue is next considered, I hope that that figure will be upped to the full two thirds.
Finally, like the hon. Member for Ogmore, I must refer to the question of resettlement grant. I understand that the normal retirement age is 65, and one's 65th birthday is a watershed. However, virtually everyone else in the country has some degree of choice about when they retire. This Parliament may be atypical, but when a Parliament runs on for longer than expected a number of hon. Members will lose the resettlement grant, whereas they would have received it if the election took place this summer or autumn, for example. This is not a very supportable case and the amendment, tabled and signed by more than 300 hon. Members, which would allow Members to take the grant, as long as they retired at the election after their 65th birthday, is acceptable.
Before I sit down, I should like to ask the Leader of the House a few questions about the resettlement grant. Under
1212
the present scheme, what would happen if an hon. Member realised that the general election would be after his 65th birthday, and he applied for the Chiltern Hundreds on the day before his 65th birthday? First, what would happen if he did that voluntarily? Secondly, what would happen if he had a medical certificate which said that he should not continue as a Member of Parliament? We all know that a number of hon. Members are looking forward to the day when they can retire, but they stay so that there will not be a by-election. Ideally, in their own interests, some of those hon. Members should go a little earlier. If we are not going to get outselves into a terrible muddle over this, we must have a clear sign that the settlement grant will be paid on a fair basis—at the nearest date to an hon. Member's 65th birthday, whether it is just before or just after.
I am grateful for the improvements that have been made to the scheme, but they have taken a long time to come. However, in all honesty, I am not completely satisfied, and I think that many hon. Members appreciate that much more needs to be done if we are to give hon. Members and their dependants the pension scheme perhaps not just that we deserve, but the one that we pay for.
10.34 pm
Ms. Joyce Quin: I had hoped to speak earlier, but let me now put on record my strong support for what was said by my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I especially welcomed their concern for widows and widowers, and for Members who, having served in the House for several years, might receive little in the way of entitlement. I also agreed with what was said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the imbalance between Treasury contributions and ours.
For the first time, I have an interest to declare. As a former MEP, I am obviously concerned about the eight years in which I served in the European Parliament. I thank the Leader of the House for his opening comments, and I am glad that he is going to examine what we consider to be an anomaly in the treatment of Members of Parliament and MEPs.
The schemes were originally designed to be identical, and many of us supported that strongly: we wanted salaries and pensions to be the same in both Parliaments. We argued against a "Euro-salary", believing that, because Members belonged to their own countries, they should be governed by national conditions in those countries. It was a matter of regret to us when the early retirement provisions departed from that principle, and a matter of satisfaction when a change was proposed—although those of us who had already served in the European Parliament were left in a rather peculiar position. It would certainly be difficult for us to accept being relegated to an even smaller group of people disadvantaged by the timing of the measures if we were joined in future by former MEPs who were able to benefit.
I thank the Leader of the House for his willingness to reconsider the matter. It is a small problem that can easily be cleared up, but it is very important to those of us who are in that small category.
10.36 pm
Mr. David Harris: Let me associate myself with everything said by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), both about the wider issue and about a position that affects no more than a dozen or so hon. Members who have served in the European Parliament.
It is always invidious to make special pleas on behalf of oneself, but I honestly do not think that we are asking for a concession. We merely feel that we should be treated in exactly the same way as other hon. Members who have been members of the pension fund throughout. It should be remembered that, as Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan was instrumental in determining that MEPs should be paid precisely the same salary, and have precisely the same pension terms, as Members of Parliament. I would not have it otherwise; I think that his decision was entirely correct. The early retirement provision contains a curious anomaly. We merely want to ensure that we are treated in the spirit of Lord Callaghan's proposal—made, I believe, at a summit meeting many years ago.
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he has approached the matter. I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) for his generous remarks. Lest there be a scintilla of doubt, let me make it clear—as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to whom he referred—that what he said came as a complete, albeit pleasant, surprise to me, and that I did not put him up to it!
I again thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, on behalf of a very small group of hon. Members who simply ask to be treated in the same way as every other Member of Parliament.
10.39 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: The House will be grateful to the Leader of the House for his succinct remarks in opening the debate.
I set out in some detail the views of the managing trustees in our earlier debate on Second Reading. There are some questions that remain unanswered and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will respond to them by correspondence as soon as he can. All I would emphasise again now is that the trustees most strongly pressed for a two thirds widow's pension and that we shall continue to argue for that further change in the scheme.
The improvements for which the regulations provide are, of course, mainly in keeping with what my fellow trustees and I have long advocated. We must now hope that the Top Salaries Review Body will be as intelligently responsive as the Leader of the House to the further improvements we have been seeking.
10.40 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have to declare two interests that relate to different points. First, we should not regard the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government as representing the taxpayers' interests and the rest of us as representing our own, or those of our potential widows or widowers. All of us are the taxpayers' representatives. I should prefer the trustees and the board to hear at least one person say that the 9 per cent. contribution is fair and reasonable, so long as the benefits for pensioners continue to improve, whenever that is thought sensible. I should much prefer to see a
1214
larger-than-usual deduction from my salary so that the accrual of pension entitlement reflects the genuine conditions that affect most people when they enter Parliament.
It is possible to become a Member of Parliament before one reaches the age of 30 and for some Members to serve until they are 65 and to get close to the maximum entitlement, but that does not apply to most hon. Members. I should prefer an increase in the pension entitlement to be made available before 65. Anyone who has served as a Member of Parliament for 20 years or so and who chooses to go should be able to do so on full pension.
The regulations make a great deal of sense. I hope that Members of Parliament will continue to ensure that those hon. Members who are not as well off as others manage to make reasonable provision for their widows and children. What has happened during the past year, with younger Members of Parliament dying, provides us with a reminder that there is much private misery. However much the Members' fund may be able to help some, it is far better that there should be entitlements—which are some of the best in the country—so that people do not suffer unnecessarily if death overtakes an hon. Member at an early age.
10.42 pm
Mr. MacGregor: I can respond briefly to the debate. As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) knows, salary questions are not a matter for this debate. He referred to pensions and benefits. The question of the balance of contributions is, as he knows, going to the Top Salaries Review Body, as is the resettlement grant.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) that we do not have particularly generous arrangements for ourselves, but we must be careful when voting about our own terms and conditions—hence the importance of ensuring that issues are referred to the TSRB for its recommendations. It is the TSRB recommendations which we have debated, both earlier today and now.
My hon. Friend referred to the resettlement grant. One peculiarity of service in this place is that we cannot choose when we shall retire. That is usually decided at a general election. If he was here this afternoon, he will know that I made that point.
My hon. Friend said that he hoped that we could move swiftly to a two thirds widow's pension. He asked why it was five eighths. I said in my opening remarks that that was agreed with the trustees because it brought us to the limits of the actuarial surplus that was then being discussed.
I am afraid that I have to disappoint my hon. Friend about one point relating to the resettlement grant. Under the present arrangements, or those suggested in early-day motion 299, that would not be available for those who seek the Chiltern Hundreds. So those of my hon. Friends or anyone else who might be tempted to exercise leverage by applying for the Chiltern Hundreds to secure a resettlement grant would not succeed in getting the arrangements changed because it does not apply in those circumstances.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) raised one or two points in the earlier debate. I am sure that he will forgive me and understand why I did

1215
not comment on them in the swift reply that I had to give to the debate. From memory, the one point that he wanted me to address was whether the House would be able to debate anything that came from the TSRB whether or not the Government came forward with regulations. I am sure that that can be dealt with through the usual channels if and when it arises, but at this stage it is a hypothetical question.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and the House will agree that the fact that I have moved fast in putting the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill to the House, implementing the earlier TSRB recommendations, and in putting as a matter of urgency to the TSRB the two points on which the House has today expressed particular concern, will show that I want to advance and settle the issues. One way of helping in that is to approve the motion now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House endorses the proposals for improvements in Members' Pensions and Scheme Benefits to be contained in regulations under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL
Motion made, and Question put,
That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee B that it have power to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill so as to make, in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom, provision for and in connection with the exercise of investigation powers by persons other than constables.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Mrs. K. Morris
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
10.46 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not wish to detain the House for too long, but the case I have to put to the Minister is very important. I will be interested to hear her reply.
It relates to a constituent of mine, Mrs. Morris, who lives in a village called South Anston. She has a son, Simon, who is a spastic quadraplegic and is obviously severely handicapped. Before 1989, she received the higher rate attendance allowance, severe disablement allowance, mobility allowance and, from 1985, the invalidity care allowance for caring for Simon. In 1989, Simon got a place at a residential school near Huddersfield. Obviously, Mrs. Morris expected a change in her income, but because she had to care for Simon at weekends, in school holidays or if he was ill, she was not able to get a job. She had to be available to care for Simon at any time and all times. Mrs. Morris understands that and accepts that her benefit would change when she is not actually caring for Simon.
The problems with receipt of her invalidity care allowance began when Simon was home for an occasional weekend—that is, when weekends either side of one spent at home were spent at school. On those weekends, she was refused invalid care allowance, even though she was receiving attendance allowance. Mrs. Morris felt aggrieved at her treatment, and lodged an appeal against the decision not to pay invalid care allowance. Although the tribunal was sympathetic, it turned down her appeal for payment on those weekends, even though she cared for Simon for up to 66 hours on those occasions.
I have a detailed schedule of the times Mrs. Morris has cared for Simon. In the week commencing Sunday 29 October 1989, Mrs. Morris cared for Simon for 31·5 hours; in the week beginning 12 November 1989, she cared for him for 33·5 hours; in the week beginning 26 November 1989, she cared for him for 32·5 hours, and in the week beginning 3 December 1989, she cared for him for 33·5 hours. Those times were for Fridays and Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays.
On all those occasions, she received two days attendance allowance, but the regulations for invalid care allowance specify that, in a week that runs to Saturday midnight, Mrs. Morris must have cared for Simon for 35 hours. Even if she might have looked after him for 66 hours over the weekend, the fact that it does not amount to 35 hours on either side of Saturday midnight means that she is denied benefit.
This case was originally brought to my attention in October 1990 by Paula Walker, who is a community worker in the advice section of the Church of England Children's Society in Maltby in my constituency. It is a worthwhile project that not only runs activities such as play groups and summer play schemes but gives good advice to my constituents when they are in need. Paula Walker wrote to me and rightly pointed out the inflexibility of the regulations for claiming invalid care allowance.
In November last year, having spoken to Paula Walker and Mrs. Morris, I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him to use his discretionary powers to grant Mrs. Morris

1217
invalid care allowance payments on the weekends when Simon is home. The reply that I received from Lord Henley was, as he acknowledged, disappointing. He said:
"I am sorry that Mrs. Morris finds that the strict interpretation of the 35-hour rule is causing problems for her, but a provision in the Social Security Act 1975 defines a week as a period of 7 days beginning with midnight between Saturday and Sunday. I do appreciate that caring for a disabled person is not an easy task. It is certainly not our intention to make it difficult for carers to get ICA: we are anxious that as many carers as possible satisfy the qualifying criteria but the regulations do not allow for discretion in this matter."
Like Mrs. Morris, I believe that that bureaucratic trap is nonsense. There is no reason why invalid care allowance cannot be as flexible as attendance allowance.
Will the Minister review the regulations and introduce an element of discretion, so that Mrs. Morris can receive payment of invalid care allowance for the time that she is looking after Simon, which is only what she is entitled to?
10.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on his success in the ballot and on eloquently raising the case of his constituent, Mrs. Morris.
Although the subject of the debate concerns the case of an individual, it raises points of wider interest, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on them. I shall do my best, in the time available, to address the issues that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House and of the Government.
My reply, therefore, will range more widely than the present rules of one benefit in an individual case, although I shall address the points that the hon. Gentleman made. I should describe the background of the Government's wider policy on community care and the social security benefits that are provided for those who need care and say something about our record on that policy. I shall then address myself to the rules that must necessarily frame any benefit scheme, which in a few cases act in ways that appear contrary to the spirit of the scheme.
First, I shall try to fit invalid care allowance into the wider picture of community care. To do so, I must give an indication of the resources that are devoted to helping many people in circumstances similar to those of Mrs. Morris and Simon through the Government's policy on community care and, through social security, to disabled people and the people who care for them.
Community care has been a large and growing part of local and central Government expenditure for more than a decade. Our commitment to it is beyond doubt, and a significant increase in social services expenditure—a 45 per cent. real terms increase between 1979 and 1990—is proof of it. April will see the implementation of phase 1 of the community care policy, as set out in the White Paper "Caring for People". That policy will be implemented in the context of a local authority settlement for 1991–92, which provides personal social services with the best increase in financial provision in 15 years. Only a few days ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment confirmed details of that settlement, which allows for a standard spending assessment for social services of £4,503 million. That represents a cash increase of more than 23 per cent. over the current year.
1218
The Government recognise the contribution of informal carers to community care, as evidenced by the initiative of improving community care services. One of the six key objectives in the White Paper "Caring for People" is
"to ensure that service providers make practical support for carers a high priority. Assessment of care needs should always take account of the needs of caring family, friends and neighbours."
The White Paper recognises that carers need help in maintaining their valuable contribution to the spectrum of care and with services that respond flexibly and sensitively to their needs, greater involvement in the development of services, advice and support as well as practical services and improved access to information about facilities.
I know that many carers give generously of their time and energies. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with admiration for his constituent, Mrs Morris, and for her son, Simon. I am sure that other hon. Members present were similarly impressed by Mrs Morris's devotion and commitment and, I was going to say, "simple hard work", but I understand that caring for Simon can never be merely simple.
Before moving from the general to the particular, I must say something about the proper role of personal benefits for people with disabilities and their carers. We have been looking at benefit provision for people with disabilities very carefully recently. The Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, which I am at present involved in steering through Parliament, is a good example of our commitment to developing and extending provision for disabled people living in the community. It takes a fresh look at benefits for a wider range of disabilities than hitherto, just as the community care plans look to providing better services for individuals and their carers on an even wider spectrum than before.
The proposals in our White Paper "The Way Ahead" as a whole give £300 million extra help to 850,000 people. Nearly 300,000 people will gain as a result of the restructuring of attendance allowance for the under-65s and mobility allowance to form the new disability living allowance, at a cost of £240 million by 1993–94.
A new benefit called disability working allowance will go to about 50,000 people, at a gross cost of £85 million, which will be broadly offset by savings elsewhere. These plans are welcomed by those needing care, by those who care for them, by their supporters and by professionals in the field. Indeed, it may be that Mrs. Morris's son Simon will benefit from the improvements that we are making now for disabled people to live in the community.
For the immediate future, we will remember the statement on the uprating of benefits made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in October and the improvements and increases in provision it contained not only for disabled people and their carers, but for handicapped, sick and elderly people who live in the community.
Making the most effective use of our benefit resources is and will continue to be, for this and any responsible Government, a matter of great importance. Our primary aim with invalid care allowance, which is the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate, remains that of the Labour Government who introduced the benefit in 1976. It is to provide help in maintaining the income of someone who gives up the opportunity of full-time work to provide regular and substantial care to a severely disabled

1219
person. To achieve that aim, the legislation and regulations that move those policy principles out of the world of good intentions and into the world of action set out the necessary rules.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the principal conditions are that the severely disabled person is someone in respect of whom there is payable attendance allowance or constant attendance allowance; that, to be treated as engaged and regularly and substantially engaged in caring for any week, the carer must show that he is, or is likely to be, engaged and regularly engaged in that caring for at least 35 hours in that caring week; and that the carer is between the normal ages for employment—that is, between 16 and pensionable age—and that he or she is in neither full-time education nor gainful employment. In other words, by caring for 35 hours a week, that carer has given up the possibility of full-time earnings. The provision is not a payment for caring services; it is directed towards the maintenance of income.
I am aware that I have given a somewhat exhaustive analysis of the benefits that we have introduced, but the tests are aimed—
Mr. Barron: On the specific point about the 35 hours, Mrs. Morris receives attendance allowance, so that is clearly more flexible in its application than invalid care allowance. She receives a full day's payment of attendance allowance on a Friday when she receives Simon at home, or collects him from his education establishment, at, say, 3 pm. Surely the simple thing would be to shift the midnight deadline and apply the provision to 35 hours in any seven days. Would not that be one way of helping Mrs. Morris, who does not have the opportunity to go out to work? If Simon fell ill tonight, for example, Mrs. Morris would receive a telephone call and she or her husband Roy would have to go to Huddersfield and bring Simon back home, because he has to be looked after independently of other people.
The Minister should agree to table amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, which is to be considered in the House next Thursday, to shift the tight 12 o'clock deadline. I do not think that any hon. Member would argue against such a proposal. No matter which Labour Government introduced the provisions, no one could possibly want to deny Mrs. Morris that payment for looking after Simon.
Miss Widdecombe: First, let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his belief that it would be possible to table amendments concerning invalid care allowance to the Bill that is currently before Parliament. Invalid care allowance is not dealt with in that Bill, and it therefore could not be amended to influence the allowance. That would require new primary legislation. I do not wish to make a technical point about that tonight, but we could not do that even if we wished to.
The problem of the midnight division is simple. If we put that division somewhere else—on Sunday night or Monday night—people other than Mrs. Morris would have difficulties. They would include those who care for people who may be discharged from hospital on short stay. There is no guarantee of when such patients may come out of hospital; that, too, could fall either side of the line.
1220
I appreciate that the watershed is a problem. However, it may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, in the year to May 1990, 35,800 invalid care decisions were made. Of those, 270 were referred for further investigation on the basis of the 35 hours criterion and the relationship of the 35 hours to intermittent, as opposed to constant, caring. Of those 270, 120 were eventually unsuccessful. In other words, only 0·34 per cent. of total invalid care allowance applications were unsuccessful. Clearly, considerable sympathy is exercised in trying to assess whether people are eligible.
I must stress that the aim of the benefit is to provide maintenance of income. Suppose that we did what the hon. Gentleman suggested. Suppose that we did not draw a line at all and said that the 35 hours could start anywhere, in any old seven days. If we did that, there would be a danger that we might be talking about someone caring only over the weekend and maintaining a full-time job during the week. The benefit is specifically designed to help people who cannot do that—to help people of earning age who are not in education and who could go out to work and bring in a reasonable income if—and only if—they did not have to care for someone for 35 hours. That is the basis on which we decided on the 35 hours, which is roughly equivalent to a working week. We are trying to measure the working week against the time given for caring.
Hon. Members will be aware, however, that the bar on gainful employment is not absolute. Carers may establish or maintain a link with employment without losing their entitlement to invalid care allowance. They can earn £20 a week, after allowing for reasonable expenses such as fares to work, and those earnings do not affect their entitlement to ICA.
Similarly, a carer can take the opportunity of an educational course for a limited number of hours to remain in contact with the world outside the one of caring. So, although there are strict guidelines about the number of hours and when they are to be counted from, there is also that flexibility built in for people who do intermittent caring and have some free time, for example, during the week to take advantage to a limited extent of earnings or education.
We have, in fact, since its introduction in 1976, widened the scope of ICA to non-relatives of the disabled person in 1981 and to the large number of married women carers in 1986. The net result is that the scheme has grown from 5,000 recipients at a cost of £4 million in 1978–79 to an estimated 130,000 carers costing £229 million in 1990–91. Very recent improvements in the attendance allowance rules are the extensions last year to children under two and for the initial six months of a claim for people with a terminal illness, which will also mean that more carers can qualify for ICA. So I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are certainly not trying to restrict or diminish ICA in any way.
As well as extending the range of carers who can benefit from invalid care allowance, we have been able to improve the conditions under which it is paid. Last April, the earnings limit was increased from £12 to £20 a week, and it will increase again this April to £30. As with other benefits, the amount of benefit has been consistently uprated in line with inflation.
Another significant improvement for carers was introduced last year. For carers receiving the income-related benefits, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was pleased to introduce last October a carer

1221
premium of £10 a week, which is expected to help 30,000 people. That too will be uprated in April. Moreover, in October this year, the premium will continue to be paid for up to eight weeks after caring ceases, which helps ex-carers to make the transition back into employment. All these are important developments. We have aimed at flexibility in the provision of services and benefits in so far as it is administratively and financially possible to do so.
The carer does not have to provide care every day of the week but must be caring regularly for at least 35 hours a week. The Government consider that that is a sensible way of measuring the degree of care provided; a degree of commitment which, as I have stressed, deprives the carer of the opportunity of full-time work.
Mr. Barron: I know exactly what the regulations say, but I am still not absolutely clear on this point. Does the Minister think that it was the intention of Parliament when it introduced the 35-hour rule that somebody such as Mrs. Morris, who cannot, because of her circumstances, get employment—even if there were any in my constituency, where it is very thin on the ground anyway—should look after people as severely disabled as Simon, and get other state allowances for doing so, for up to 66 hours a week, which is far beyond the 35-hour test for ICA, and not get this payment? Is the Minister telling me that there is no way, through an appeal or through discretion, to get over this? Is there no flexibility at all about this cut-off at midnight? Does the Minister say that that is the case and that there is no flexibility or likelihood of flexibility with regard to Simon Morris?
Miss Widdecombe: I must stress again that invalid care allowance is not an allowance as payment for caring services. It does not compensate people for caring. It is specifically aimed at compensating people for inability to take full employment. There are people outside the categories who are suggesting—people studying, people who perhaps are already over pension age, and other people—who are not available for employment and who might well be providing that level of care, and they are not eligible.
Certainly it is not the intention of Parliament to deprive people of this allowance where they qualify. It is not a payment for caring services. The question is not how many hours people care but whether they are prevented from taking up full-time employment. The 35 hours a week is the guideline and the definition of that point.
I know that the watershed midway through the weekend, about which the hon. Gentleman complains, is
1222
unfair to Mrs. Morris, and may indeed seem to be unfair, but the purpose of ICA, as I have said several times, is to replace the earnings income of a person who forgoes the opportunity of work in order to care. In that context, the present provision is in line with what for most people is the working week, which is usually Monday to Friday.
Since ICA is to help those who have forgone full-time work by providing substantial and regular care rather than a payment for caring, the present test is not, in my view, unfair. Where the disabled person returns home every or almost every weekend, the total hours of care in any week will generally add up to 35. So carers performing their role regularly but not necessarily every day can be entitled. Where the weekends or holidays at home are intermittent, as in Mrs. Morris's case, the test of regular and substantial care may not be met.
The extent of Mrs. Morris's attention to her son's needs during the hours that he is at home is not at issue. Nevertheless, I do not feel that it is feasible to change the rules to meet her particular circumstances. As I have said, to use a different day would simply mean that we eliminate other people who benefit from the arrangement. There are very likely to be other examples of regular patterns of caring in which ICA is payable at present that would suffer from such a change. It would also remove a common link with other social security benefits.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman may be asking himself whether we have done anything to gauge the extent of the effect of the rule. As I explained, we estimate that decisions that go against the claimant number only a hundred or so in a year, whereas, at present, there are 130,000 recipients of ICA. The extent of the problem identified by the hon. Gentleman would not appear to be great.
In summary, I do not feel that we can change the rules to meet a particular case. The test that we have laid down is consistent with social security benefits, consistent with what most people regard as the start and end of the week, and consistent with our aim of trying to compensate people who forgo full-time employment. It is not a payment for caring services. It is not to compensate somebody for caring. It is specifically aimed at earnings potential. We have devised a fair method. Even the fairest method will throw up anomalies and exceptions. Could I do so, I would not propose to change that method this week or in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action he will take further to restrict the sales of substances such as butane which can lead to addiction through abuse; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he has taken and intends to take in the future in order to combat lighter fuel sniffing; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he can provide figures for the number of persons who undertake solvent abuse and lighter fuel sniffing; and what resources he has committed to fighting this.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has the lead in co-ordinating Government policies in this area, which are directed primarily towards education and prevention. It is not possible to estimate the extent of volatile substance misuse with any accuracy as this is essentially a clandestine activity: the numbers are thought to vary greatly over time and place.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's main responsibility so far as the inhalation of lighter fuel is concerned is for the application and enforcement of the criminal law. We supported the passage through Parliament of the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 which penalises anyone who supplies, or offers to supply, a substance while knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it is likely to be inhaled by someone under 18 for the purposes of causing intoxication. Figures for the cost of enforcing this law, and of police action in dealing with misusers, are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In view of the very wide range of everyday substances which can be misused, we believe there is little to be gained from further restricting sales. But we shall continue to encourage the voluntary co-operation of retailers in controlling the supply of volatile substances to young people.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licence applications were referred to an external assessor by the inspectorate under section 9(1) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, in the years 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Statistics on the referral of project licence applications to external assessors are not collected centrally. Applications are referred for formal external assessment on a case-by-case basis where advice is required on specialised aspects of projects, although the number of such referrals is unlikely to be large. In addition, referrals under section 9(1) are made to the Animal Procedures Committee.

  Iraqi Service Personnel
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi army, air or navy officers are known to be present to date in the United Kingdom; how many such personnel have been admitted to the United Kingdom in each of the past five years for courses of study; and how many such officers(a) have le ft the United Kingdom voluntarily, (b) have been deported, (c) are in detention, (d) are subject to restriction on their movements and (e) are resident without restriction.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No information is recorded on the number of Iraqis admitted to the United Kingdom who were serving members of the Iraqi armed forces. Thirty-six Iraqis, whom we now have reason to believe are serving members of the forces, entered the United Kingdom as students to study at various colleges. Thirty-five of these did so without declaring their military status. One was allowed to make a voluntary departure before confirmation of his status was received and 35 are in military custody. We have no knowledge of the presence in the United Kingdom of any other serving member of the armed forces.

  Braille
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the cost of producing form RPF 7B for application to vote by post or proxy in respect of physical disability in braille.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Refugees
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people with refugee status currently reside in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Around 37,000 people, including sough-east Asian refugees, have been allowed to stay in the United Kingdom as refugees since 1979. Corresponding information for earlier years is not available. Comprehensive records are not kept of those who leave the country, die, obtain British citizenship or otherwise cease to hold refugee status here.

  Prostitutes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from police authorities regarding the practice of introducing women in court as known prostitutes.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received a letter from the West Yorkshire police authority, forwarded by several hon. and right hon. Members. I have sent the hon. Member a copy of our reply.

  Iraqi Detainees
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what comments the International Red Cross has made on the conditions in which Iraqi detainees were held at Her Majesty's prison Pentonville; and what changes the Government are introducing as a result of representations made by the Red Cross.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  The detainees initially located in Pentonville are now held in Full Sutton prison in
  561
  Yorkshire in appropriate living conditions with integral sanitation. This accommodation had been identified before the representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross made their visit. Communications between the ICRC and Her Majesty's Government are conducted in confidence and it is not the practice to disclose details.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer,Official Report, 18 December 1990, column 104, if he will list the dates in 1991 on which information relating to poll tax liability orders will be collected and the dates on which it will be published.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 29 January 1991]: During 1991 information on community charge enforcement proceedings in the magistrates courts will be collected on 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December. The information should be available in the Library within six weeks of the end of each quarter.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to require local authorities to apply a multiplier of zero to those public houses occupied by persons as tenants who are also registered to pay poll tax at a separate address.

  Mr. Key
  Under the new standard charge classes which take effect from 1 April 1991, the multiplier may not exceed one times the personal community charge where unoccupied domestic property shares the same building as a business and as a result would be difficult to let separately. In addition we have now prescribed a new standard community charge class of property whereby the multiplier may not exceed one half if the person subject to that charge is also living in job-related accommodation. Charging authorities will have the discretion to apply either a standard charge multiplier of 0 or one half.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is available to establish the percentage of payments of community charge and uniform business rates which are still outstanding for each local authority for 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 23 January 1991,Official Report, column 190.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his best estimate of the cost of administering his proposed community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Portillo
  I hope to be in a position to publish an estimate following further discussions between my Department and the local authority associations.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his estimates of the numbers entitled to relief under the community charge 562
  reduction scheme using the tax/benefit model based upon the latest family expenditure survey data, breaking the numbers down by size of household and distinguishing between those receiving automatic relief and pensioners or disabled persons who qualify for special relief.

  Mr. Portillo
  The figures requested are in the table. They are for England only and are based on the family expenditure surveys for 1987, 1988 and 1989. They incorporate a 10 per cent. per annum allowance for depletion of entitlement for charge payers who have moved or died.

  Effect of Community Charge Reduction Scheme in 1991–92, by household type

  Number of households (000's)

  Number of adults

  CC reduction (£ million

  All households

  8,950

  18,530

  1,700

  One-adult households

  1,150

  1,150

  190

  Two-adult households

  6,340

  12,700

  1,220

  Larger households

  1,470

  4,680

  290

  Of which extra help to:

  Pensioners

  350

  430

  70

  Disabled

  100

  100

  20

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many landfill sites containing methane have subsequently been the subject of developments.

  Mr. Baldry
  Government advice since 1978 has been that building development is inadvisable on former landfill sites known to be emitting methane. Figures for developments on former landfills are not collected centrally. However, since 1988 local planning authorities have been required to consult waste disposal authorities on applications for development within 250 m of landfills.

  Maps
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that Ordnance Survey continues to show the location of Forestry Commission land on its Landranger and Pathfinder maps.

  Mr. Baldry
  The chief executive will write to the hon. Member.

  Refuse-derived Fuel
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has executive power to conclude regulations governing the burning of refuse-derived fuel without reference of final decisions to him.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution does not have power to make regulations. Regulations governing the burning of refuse-derived fuel are being prepared by the Department as part of the regulations to implement the EC directive on municipal waste incineration. They will be subject to parliamentary approval in the usual way.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Members
  563
  for Thurrock and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), Official Report, column 87, 21 January, whether Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will consider the effects of disproportionate costs on small-scale users of refuse-derived fuel when drafting integrated pollution control regulations.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is not drafting regulations. When drafting the guidance to cover the burning of refuse-derived fuel Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will consult widely the relevant sectors of industry and will take into account the costs to users.

  First-time Buyers
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of schemes to assist first-time buyers with below-market value homes(a) in the European Community and (b) in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department is aware of several schemes for assisting house purchase deployed in European Community countries. Most involve assistance towards loan repayments; we are not aware of any schemes in which property can he purchased at less than full market

  The 1990–91 and 1991–92 Standard Spending Assessments for Education and Social Services and for each borough in Greater London in £ million·

  £ million

  Authority

  1990–91 Education SSA

  1991–92 Education SSA

  1990–91 Social Services SSA

  1991–92 Social Services SSA

  City of London

  0·824

  0·814

  0·396

  0·500

  Camden

  52·762

  61·062

  33·809

  41·584

  Greenwich

  82·257

  98·038

  25·451

  32·165

  Hackney

  91·828

  106·800

  45·074

  55·504

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  45·602

  51·587

  32·215

  38·937

  Islington

  64·211

  76·597

  34·146

  43·015

  Kensington and Chelsea

  29·783

  34·857

  23·497

  30·155

  Lambeth

  105·484

  124·829

  57·262

  71·209

  Lewisham

  86·010

  102·429

  35·035

  43·806

  Southwark

  85·168

  102·708

  40·813

  51·017

  Tower Hamlets

  91·292

  112·110

  32·414

  41·015

  Wandsworth

  84·149

  97·374

  43·829

  54·869

  Westminster

  44·456

  50·044

  34·161

  43·073

  Barking and Dagenham

  48·338

  56·906

  14·943

  18·288

  Barnet

  88·054

  104·134

  23·237

  29·204

  Bexley

  67·800

  80·499

  13·412

  16·715

  Brent

  108·138

  124·847

  35·191

  42·506

  Bromley

  79·378

  92·214

  20·353

  25·580

  Croydon

  102·781

  120·350

  27·523

  34·025

  Ealing

  100·586

  119·871

  30·872

  37·725

  Enfield

  88·524

  105·597

  21·500

  26·679

  Haringey

  79·308

  93·711

  32·528

  40·378

  Harrow

  65·387

  75·400

  13·080

  15·983

  Havering

  71·015

  84·563

  13·710

  17·183

  Hillingdon

  69·110

  82·574

  16·047

  20·284

  Hounslow

  68·774

  82·443

  18·643

  23·032

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  36·275

  43·282

  10·989

  13·011

  Merton

  47·164

  54·705

  15·345

  18·567

  Newham

  98·510

  118·059

  31·636

  38·858

  Redbridge

  71·225

  85·178

  17·082

  21·655

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  35·997

  41·859

  13·677

  17·113

  Sutton

  47·633

  56·689

  12·233

  15·251

  Waltham Forest

  81·744

  96·671

  27·274

  33·156

  564
  value. By contrast, in the United Kingdom the Government have offered wider forms of assistance of which right to buy, shared ownership, homesteading and licensed development schemes involve substantial discounts to first-time buyers.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of the people who bought homes for the first time in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  The number of first-time buyers in Great Britain is estimated at 630,000 in 1987, 770,000 in 1988 and 640,000 in 1989. Figures for the whole of 1990 are not yet available, but in the first three quarters of 1990 it is estimated that there were some 450,000 first-time buyers.

  Spending Assessments
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the standard spending assessments for(a) 1990–91 and (h) 1991–92 for each of the boroughs in Greater London in respect of (i) education and (ii) social services.

  Mr. Key
  The figures requested are shown in the table.

  Pollution Control (Appeals)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the appeals under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 currently under consideration, showing the dates when they were first lodged; how many decisions have been issued since 30 August 1990; and whether he has any proposals for speeding the process.

  Mr. Trippier
  The table lists the appeals currently under consideration showing the dates they were first lodged. Three decisions have been issued since 30 August 1990. Following internal reorganisation of staff to allow greater priority to be given to these appeals in future, we are now in the process of hiring consultants to provide additional technical support.

  Empire Brickworks, Stubbers Green Road, Aldridge, Walsall

  1 June 1982

  Seal Sands Terminal, Seal Sands, Cleveland

  26 June 1984

  Empire Brickworks 51, Stubbers Green Road, Aldridge, Walsall

  8 September 1986

  Empire Brickworks 231, Stubbers Green Road, Aldridge, Walsall

  8 September 1986

  Empire Brickworks 323, Stubbers Green Road, Aldridge, Walsall

  8 September 1986

  Empire Brickworks 324, Stubbers Green Road, Aldridge, Walsall

  8 September 1986

  Aveley Clay Pit 2 & 3, Sandy Lane, Aveley,Essex

  10 July 1987

  Old Railway Cutting, Chesterfield Road, Bolsover, Derbyshire

  7 December 1987

  Unit 3 Hartlepool, Sandgate Industrial Estate, Cleveland

  7 December 1987

  Springwell Hill, Nether Handley, Sheffield

  9 December 1987

  Norwood Industrial Estate, Rotherham Road, Killamarsh, Sheffield

  3 February 1988

  Munnery's Copse, Worthing, West Sussex

  27 June 1988

  Springwell Hill (2), Nether Handley, Sheffield

  1 August 1988

  Redbournbury Plant, St. Albans, Hertfordshire

  24 November 1988

  Butterley Hole, Stubbers Green Road, Aldridge, Walsall

  6 February 1989

  Bakers Hole, Swanscombe, Kent

  8 March 1989

  Martin Earles No. 1, Cuxton, Kent

  8 March 1989

  Martin Earles Pit No. 2, Cuxton, Kent

  8 March 1989

  140 Moss Lane, Macclesfield, Cheshire

  13 March 1989

  Mucking Wharf, Mucking, Essex

  16 May 1989

  Offham Quarry, Teston Road, Offham, Kent

  19 June 1989

  Stangate Quarry, Borough Green, Kent

  19 June 1989

  Pluckley Brickworks, Chambers Green, Pluckley, Kent

  29 June 1989

  Vineyard Chalkpit, Rainham, Kent

  29 June 1989

  Stone Pits 5 & 6, Stone, Dartford, Kent

  29 June 1989

  Stone 1 & Atlas Stone, Stone, Dartford, Kent

  29 June 1989

  Barnett & Beddows, Stubbers Green Road, Aldridge, Walsall

  6 September 1989

  Rough Park Quarry, Mill Lane, Upholland, Lancashire

  9 October 1989

  Lumm Farm, Lumb Lane, Littlemoss, Droylesden, Greater Manchester

  20 October 1989

  Halfhead Farm, Shallowford, Stone, Staffordshire

  17 November 1989

  Bell Terminal, Grangetown, Middlesbrough, Cleveland

  20 November 1989

  Jolly Farmer Sand Pit, Guildford Road, Runfold, Surrey

  21 November 1989

  Farnham Sandpit, Alton Road, Farnham, Surrey

  8 December 1989

  Birch Coppice, Coppice Side, Brownhills, Walsall

  8 January 1990

  Castner Kellnersite, Runcorn

  11 January 1990

  Rocksavage Site, Runcorn

  11 January 1990

  Former Branstons Wharf, Lea Road, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire

  24 January 1990

  Hoddesdonbury, Cock Lane, Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire

  5 February 1990

  566

  Ex Y.E.B. Sub-station, Parkwood Road, Neepsend, Sheffield

  5 February 1990

  600B Hammondstreet Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire

  7 February 1990

  Tunnel Approach Transfer Station, St. Leonard's Wharf, London

  8 March 1990

  Sansbury Farm, Knotts Lane, Colne, Lancashire

  19 March 1990

  Griff Quarry No. 2, Coventry Road, Nuneaton, Warwickshire

  30 March 1990

  Parkwood Road Coal Yard, Parkwood Road, Neepsend, Sheffield

  12 April 1990

  Farnham Sandpit, Alton Road, Farnham, surrey

  10 May 1990

  Jessamy Road, Weybridge, Surrey

  15 May 1990

  Wharfdale Depot, Westbourne, Bournemouth, Dorset

  1 June 1990

  Colton Hall Farm, Blithbury Road, Colton, Rugeley, Staffordshire

  8 June 1990

  Greengate, Chadderton, Oldham, Greater Manchester

  12 June 1990

  Beswick Tip, Beswick, Humberside

  21 June 1990

  Hill Top Colliery A & B, Sharnyford, Lancashire (LANCS)

  6 July 1990

  Hill Top Colliery C & D, Sharnyford, Lancashire (WYWM)

  6 July 1990

  Monk's Tip, Tividale, Sandwell

  13 July 1990

  Grange Farm, Buckles Lane, South Ockenden,Essex

  18 July 1990

  Stillington Landfill Site, Stockton on Tees, Cleveland

  27 July 1990

  Nea Road, Hamer Warren, Somerley, Ringwood, Hampshire

  8 August 1990

  Greengate, Chadderton, Oldham No. 2

  15 August 1990

  Broadwater Plant Site, Nr. Denham, Hillingdon

  31 August 1990

  Hillhouse Works, Thornton Cleveleys, Blackpool, Lancashire

  30 October 1990

  Cleanaway Incineration Plant. Bridges Road, Ellesmere Port

  5 November 1990

  21 Ham Moor Lane, Weybridge, Surrey

  8 November 1990

  The Old Rectory, Lorton Lane, Broadway, Weymouth, Dorset

  19 November 1990

  West Road, Pogmoor, Barnsley, South Yorkshire

  19 November 1990

  Stephenson Industrial Estate, Hartlepool, Cleveland

  22 November 1990

  Albright & Wilson Works, Smoke Lane, Avonmouth, Bristol, Avon

  3 December 1990

  Hillary Road/Wilden Lane, Stourport, Hereford and Worcester

  6 December 1990

  Ross Mills, Rodley, Leeds

  11 December 1990

  Wharf Lane, Chasetown, Nr. Walsall, Staffordshire

  17 December 1990

  Bedwell Avenue, Essendon, Hatfield, Hertfordshire

  20 December 1990

  Middlefield Ware Quarry, Westmill Road, Hertfordshire

  27 December 1990

  Ashburton Grove, Islington, London

  3 January 1991

  Stowford Quarry, Okehampton, Devon

  9 January 1991

  Bretts Farm, Marshfoot Road, Grays, Essex

  18 January 1991

  Stone Quarry, Crooke Burnell, North Tawton, Devon

  18 January 1991

  Waste Regulation (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received the report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the arrangements for waste regulation in South Yorkshire; what action he has taken on the report; and when he intends to publish it.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution submitted its report to the Secretary of State on 12 December 1990. Copies have been placed in the Library, and are available from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on request. I have concluded on the basis of this report that unless the four district councils in South
  567
  Yorkshire are able to agree improved joint arrangements which meet Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's concerns, my right hon. Friend will have no alternative but to set up a statutory waste regulation authority for the area. Officials have written to the councils concerned informing them of these views, and the action we propose to take.

  Titnore Lane Landfill Site
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when any parties to the planning appeal regarding the Titnore lane landfill site were informed of the proposed date for the appeal to be heard; on what date the county council was informed; and what representations he has received about the time necessary for all parties to prepare their case adequately.

  Sir George Young
  The parties, including West Sussex county council, were notified formally on 18 January that this inquiry will open on 16 April—the first date on which a suitably qualified inspector is available to take it. An informal indication of an April inquiry was given, inadvertently, to the appellants' agents during a telephone conversation in December. The county council wanted more time in which to prepare its case. However, the council's initial written statement on the appeal proposal was lodged on 19 December, and three months' notice of the inquiry is considered reasonable. Under the inquiries procedure rules this inquiry should have opened not later than 14 March, but that was not practicable.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions have been made for the long-term management or disposal of radioactive wastes arising from the decommissioning of the Windscale piles Nos. 1 and 2, B6 and B16, at Sellafield; and if the costs are rechargeable to any Government Department.

  Mr. Trippier
  Low-level waste arising from decommissioning of the Windscale piles is likely to be disposed of at the Drigg disposal site. Intermediate-level waste will be disposed of in United Kingdom Nirex deep repository. I understand that the costs of this work will be met by the Ministry of Defence and the Atomic Energy Authority.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the leaders of local authorities to discuss the housing sector.

  Mr. Yeo
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), the then Minister for Housing and Construction, met representatives of the local authority associations at the Housing Consultative Council on 19 November. The council normally meets twice a year.

  Security
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he has issued guidance to local authorities in England and Wales about increased security in public buildings such as libraries;

  (2) whether he has issued guidance to local authorities concerning security of local authority employees with regard to possible terrorist action.
  568
  Mr. Heseltine
  It is the duty of everybody in the country today to be vigilant. Local authorities are well aware of their responsibilities in this matter and of the precautions which they should be taking.

  Urban Development
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake a policy and quantitative evaluation of the work of each urban development corporation covering the period of their existence.

  Mr. Portillo
  Arrangements are in hand for an exercise in 1991–92 to establish baseline data for future evaluation of UDCs and Birmingham Heartlands.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the urban development corporations which have areas of land in their charge which have yet to show some development taking place on land acquired.

  Mr. Key
  The UDCs acquire, reclaim and dispose of land for development as one means of securing the regeneration of their areas. All UDCs currently hold some land which is awaiting development.

  The Gulf
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has conducted into the possibility of smoke pollution from the Gulf reaching the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  A note by the Meteorological Office on possible environmental consequences of burning oil wells in Kuwait was placed in the Library of the House on 17 January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It contains no suggestion that smoke from Gulf oil fires would reach the United Kingdom. The Meteorological Office is continuing to refine its assessment, in consultation with the Department.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what preparations were made before 28 January by his Department to deal with any major environmental consequences of the conflict in the Gulf; on which dates each of these preparations was made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Job Creation
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the projected number of jobs to be created by(a) the London Docklands development corporation and (b) the Merseyside development corporation.

  Mr. Portillo
  No numbers were projected when these development corporations were set up. To March 1990, there had been a net gain of 29,000 permanent jobs in the London Docklands area and 4,200 in Merseyside's area.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local people have secured jobs in
  569
  the area of (a) London Docklands development area and (b) Merseyside development corporation since their introduction.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not collected by Merseyside nor on a regular basis by London Docklands. However, a London Docklands survey in 1987 indicated that out of 42,000 then employed in the urban development area about a third were residents of the three dockland boroughs.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table of expenditure on the regional offices of Government Ministries in 1989–90, broken down by Ministry and separating out the cost of running the regional office from the funding programmes it discharges and showing the expenditure on, and of, each regional office separately.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 22 January 1991]: The estimated costs of running each regional office of the

  Table 2

  Department of the Environment/spending in England by standard economic planning regions in 1989–90 (£M)

  Standard economic planning regions

  Rate support grant

  Other service basic capital allocations to LAs

  Community charge preparation allocations to LAs

  Urban development corporations

  Urban Programme

  Housing subsidy paid to local authorities

  Housing investment Programme allocation to authorities

  South east

  2,849

  60·9

  51·5

  255·8

  50·7

  516·7

  452·2

  South West

  785

  17·6

  13·1

  5·0

  2·5

  2·9

  62·3

  East Anglia

  285

  8·4

  5·7

  —

  —

  0·3

  26·4

  West Midlands

  1,053

  17·1

  13·9

  3·8

  41·0

  8·8

  127·8

  East Midlands

  762

  12·9

  11·1

  —

  11·4

  10·0

  60·7

  North West

  1,695

  20·4

  17·2

  47·3

  73·5

  29·7

  186·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,306

  19·5

  13·3

  18 3

  27·2

  -0·2

  106·3

  Northern Region

  843

  11·2

  8·6

  17·8

  41·7

  16·2

  72·5

  The expenditure on urban programme includes previously with DES, DH and DTp. The totals also include LAs contribution (25 per cent.).

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Bank base rates are 14 per cent.

  Imports
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how imports have performed over the latest three months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how imports have performed over the latest three months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the fourth quarter of 1990 the volume of imports—less oil and erratics—fell by 1 per cent. on the previous quarter. Volumes in the year as a whole rose by only 1 per cent. compared with export growth of 7½ per cent.
  570
  Department of the Environment in 1989–90 are shown in table 1. Information on the Department's programme expenditure is collected by standard economic planning region; the breakdown for 1989–90 is shown in table 2. Both tables exclude the Property Services Agency. Information on other Departments' regional offices is not held by my Department.

  Table 1

  Regional office

  1989–90 administration expenditure £ million

  London

  5·2

  South East

  3·8

  Eastern

  3·1

  South West

  2·7

  West Midlands

  4·4

  East Midlands

  3·9

  North West

  6·8

  Merseyside Task Force

  2·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4·7

  Northern

  4·2

  Income Tax
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the impact on income from income tax of the reduction of the higher rates of that tax.

  Mr. Maude
  Since 1979, the top rate of income tax has been reduced from 83 to 40 per cent., and nine separate higher rate bands have been reduced to a single rate. Over that period, receipts from higher rate tax have increased two and a half times in real terms.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to reduce the standard rate of tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the export performance of United Kingdom manufacturers during 1990.
  571
  Mr. Mellor
  The volume of manufactured exports rose by 8 per cent. in 1990 after a 10½ per cent. rise in 1989. The United Kingdom share of world trade in manufactures rose for the second successive year.

  Taxation
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his current estimate of the percentage of central Government revenue raised from income tax in each of the main OECD countries.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest estimates by the OECD show that in the United Kingdom the share of taxes on personal income in total tax and social security revenues in 1988 was equal to the EC average.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has of the changing impact of taxes, including income tax, indirect taxes, insurance and local taxes and charges, on 18-year-olds and 21-year-olds between 1 January 1979 and 1 January 1991 on average earnings and incomes for those age groups.

  Mr. Maude
  A young person in employment aged between 18 and 20 paid on average 25 per cent. of gross earnings in income tax and national insurance contributions in 1978–79; and will pay 22 per cent. in 1990–91. Information on the effects of other taxes is not available.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Trades Union Congress about the public spending planning total for 1991–92.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Investment
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest OECD estimates for investment growth in the United Kingdom and Germany in 1990.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Latest OECD estimates for total fixed investment in 1990, published in the December "Economic Outlook" and, partly based on forecasts, show a fall of 1·3 per cent. in the United Kingdom and a rise of 8·2 per cent. in western Germany.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is manufacturing output today; and what was the comparable figure in spring 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  Manufacturing output data are published in index form, with the average for 1985 equal to 100. In the three months to November manufacturing output averaged 116·2. In the second quarter of 1979 the index was 108·7.

  Savings
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates for the savings ratio.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce).

  Inflation
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the prospects for inflation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  RPI inflation fell from 10·9 per cent. in October to 9·3 per cent. in December. This is consistent with the autumn statement forecast which pointed to a fall to 5½ per cent. by the fourth quarter of this year.

  Exports
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the level of export growth over the latest three months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the fourth quarter of 1990 United Kingdom export volumes—excluding oil and erratics— rose 2 per cent. on the previous quarter and were 4 per cent. higher than a year earlier.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the effects of the Government's policies on child poverty.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group last June and has no plans to do so again in the near future.

  Tax-exempt Savings
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many building societies and banks are offering a TESSA.

  Mr. Maude
  A total of 150 so far, including the great majority of high street banks and building societies.

  London Weighting
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the amount which has been spent in the last two years as London weighting for civil servants represents increases to the salaries of lower-paid civil servants.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  London weighting has not been increased over the last two years. However, of the £87 million spent enhancing London pay in other ways during the period approximately 41 per cent. has been paid to staff with salary maxima below £10,000.

  New Coins
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consult all interests, including vending machine operators, shops and the general public, before introducing any new coinage or notes.

  Mr. Maples
  It is standard practice for the royal mint to consult interested parties before the introduction of any new coins, and it will continue to do so. Before the new 5p coin was introduced into circulation in June 1990, the royal mint undertook extensive consultations with interested parties and the general public. In addition vending companies were given test coins and two and a half years' notice to plan for the change.
  573
  The Bank of England is responsible for note issue matters. It also carries out extensive consultations prior to new notes being issued. It consults, in particular, organisations representing the blind, and also makes samples of the new notes available to banks, building societies, and note-handling machine manufacturers well in advance of issue.

  "Next Steps" Agencies
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards establishing Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue as "next steps" agencies.

  Mr. Maude
  Following the announcement my predecessor made on 25 July 1990 at c.239–42 on steps to be taken to ensure both Departments operated fully on "next steps" lines I intend to make further announcements in respect of both Departments shortly.

  Gulf War
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the total cost of British involvement in the Gulf has been calculated.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 30 January 1991]: The basis for the calculations of the cost of United Kingdom military operations in the Gulf was explained in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's letter of 21 January to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), a copy of which is in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) what plans he has for the improvement of disabled access in the House;

  (2) when a review of disabled access in the House was last made.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The all-party disablement group carried out a review and submitted proposals to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in May 1981 to improve access for disabled people. As I stated in my reply of 21 January to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the Parliamentary Works Officer is carrying out feasibility studies into a number of further proposals that were received in December 1990 from the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), chairman of the all-party disablement group. Once they have been completed, the results of these studies will be forwarded to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee for its consideration.

  Members' Accommodation
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what investigations have been carried out to try to identify extra office accommodation for hon. Members pending the completion of the new office buildings.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The results of a comprehensive space audit of the parliamentary estate will be presented to the 574
  Services Committee shortly. They are expected to confirm that there is little scope for providing extra accommodation for Members prior to the opening of phase I of the new parliamentary building later this year. About 100 extra Members' offices will be provided at that time. Planning is under way for phase 2 of the project, with a view to achieving the Services Committee's objective that by the time the new building is complete,
  "every Member who wants a room of his or her own should have one".

  In addition, urgent consideration is being given to the possibility of acquiring alternative accommodation within a reasonable distance of the Chamber for Members and staff currently occupying buildings, such as St. Stephen's house, which it is proposed to redevelop as part of phase 2. The Services Committee expects to report to the House on these matters shortly.

  Statues
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Lord President of the Council for what reason the statue of Joseph Chamberlain in the Members' Lobby of the House was replaced with one of Benjamin Disraeli during the Christmas recess; if he will outline the total cost of such a move; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The statues were moved following a resolution of the Advisory Committee on Works of Art in the House of Commons. The cost of the work was some £3,000.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the contribution made by EC members to the Gulf crisis in terms of cash and resources; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The majority of the European Community member states have already contributed to the multinational force in the Gulf, whether with military forces, logistical, medical, financial or other forms of assistance. We are seeking additional contributions to our costs from a number of countries, including EC members. The Community and its member states are also providing economic assistance to those countries most directly affected economically by the crisis, as well as providing substantial humanitarian assistance to alleviate the refugee problem in the region.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) governmental and (b) international activity, involving Her Majesty's Government, took place before 28 January to prepare the specialist method of responding to any environmental crisis in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.
  575
  The Prime Minister
  The Government have responded promptly and positively to requests from the Saudi Arabian Government for expert advice and assistance following the deliberate pollution of the Gulf by Saddam Hussein. We are also in touch with other states in the region. Since the risk of conflict arose, the Government have been fully conscious of a number of possible environmental risks arising from it and has maintained close contact with the allies on all matters connected with it. It is for the Gulf states affected, drawing on the expertise on offer from the United Kingdom and the international community, to lead the response to the environmental damage that Iraq is inflicting on the region.

  Gas Masks (Palestinians)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the Israeli Prime Minister concerning the provision of gas masks to the Palestinian population in the occupied territories.

  The Prime Minister
  None. On 14 January the Israeli High Court ordered the army to distribute its stock of masks to Palestinians along the green line between Israel and the occupied territories immediately, and to obtain more for the remaining residents of the west bank and Gaza. The distribution has begun. We welcome this decision.

  Pay Review Bodies
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest reports of the pay review bodies.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1991 reports of the review bodies on the pay of the armed forces, the doctors and dentists, the professions allied to medicine, nursing staff, midwives and health visitors, and of the Top Salaries Review Body have been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are grateful to the members of the review bodies for the time and care which they have put into the preparation of the reports. The table shows the increases recommended by the review bodies for each group, and their cost.

  Pay increase Per cent.

  Range of increases in 1991–92 Per cent.

  United Kingdom public expenditure cost1 £ million

  Armed forces

  12·2

  211·2–18·0

  536

  Doctors and dentists

  10·2

  9·5–12·7

  454

  Professions allied to medicine

  10·8

  10·0–14·2

  74

  Nursing staff, midwives and health visitors

  9·7

  39·5–11·0

  696

  Top salaries

  9·6

  49·5–12·1

  10

  1 These figures are higher than those in the Review Bodies' reports, which do not cover the full public expenditure costs·

  2 University cadets will receive lower increases, down to 7·8 per cent· for first year students· A few Captains RN may receive up to 20·1 per cent· as a result of changes to submarine and bonus payments·

  3 A small number of Grade B staff and staff nursery nurses will receive rises of 14·1 per cent· or 14·2 per cent·, and some nurses in receipt of the geriatric lead will receive 9·3 per cent·

  4 The 12·1 per cent· is for 2 star officers only; all others receive 9·5 per cent·

  576
  The Government accept the recommendations of the review bodies and will be implementing them in full. All the proposed improvements in pay structures, designed to assist in recruiting, retaining and motivating staff, are accepted, indeed welcomed. But the overall cost of the pay packages proposed by the review bodies is high. The cost exceeds the provision available in Departments' spending plans for next year at a time when public expenditure is under pressure as a result of events in the Gulf.

  Accordingly, given the size of the recommended increases as well as wider economic considerations, it will be necessary to stage payment of the review bodies' awards, except to the armed forces. When many of our armed forces are on active service, we have concluded it would not be appropriate to ask them to wait for their full pay award. For all other groups the staging will involve an increase of at least 7·5 per cent. from 1 April with the balance paid from 1 December. In consequence the full awards for all groups will be in payment before the end of this year.

  The cost of implementing the recommendations on this basis will be met from within the public expenditure planning totals published in the autumn statement. The Government recognise that the cost of the health service awards could not be met in full from present health service provision without adversely affecting services to patients. The Government will therefore provide an extra £250 million from the reserve for next year, bringing the total increase in the resources available for the national health services between 1990–91 and 1991–92 to 3·4 billion. The full increase in costs for the armed forces over the provision previously made in the defence budget will also be met from the reserve: an allocation of £70 million will be made from the reserve for this purpose.

  The specific application of this approach to the respective groups will be as follows.

  The increases recommended by the review body on the armed forces will be paid in full from 1 April 1991. The increase in the 'x' factor, which reflects the special demands of service life, will be larger for women than for men and will remove all pay distinctions between them.

  The Government have decided to accept the recommendations of the review body on doctors and dentists, but to stage their implementation so that 7·5 per cent. is paid in all cases from 1 April and the remainder of the increases, ranging from 2 per cent. to 5·2 per cent. for different categories, from 1 December. Increased expenses for general medical practitioners, which are a necessary part of the cost of running a practice, will be paid in full from 1 April.

  Similarly, for nursing staff, midwives and health visitors, the Government accept the recommendations of the review body, but their implementation will be staged so that all staff will receive at least 7·5 per cent. from 1 April and the remaining 2 per cent. from 1 December. Lower-paid nursing staff, for whom the review body has recommended higher increases, will receive all but 2 per cent. from 1 April with the balance paid from 1 December.

  The Government have also decided to accept the recommendations of the review body on professions allied to medicine, but to stage their implementation so that 7·5 per cent. is paid to all from 1 April and the remaining pay increases and other additional payments are paid from 1 December.

  Groups covered by the Top Salaries Review Body will receive 7·5 per cent. from 1 April, with the remainder from

  577
  1 December. However, two-star military officers, for whom higher increases were recommended, will receive all but 2 per cent. from 1 April with the balance paid from 1 December. The new system of performance-related pay for civil servants, which the Top Salaries Review Body recommended in their report last year, will be implemented from 1 April 1991.

  The pay rates and scales resulting from the decisions will be promulgated as soon as possible for the groups concerned. Pensions will follow the rates of salary in payment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Companies Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will give the number and list the companies in which he has appointed inspectors from within or outside his Department under the Companies Act 1985 since 1979; and if he will give the number of those inspectors' reports which he has published.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 8 January 1990,Official Report, columns 519–24. Since that date, inspectors have been appointed in the following cases:

  1. BOM Holdings plc.

  2. Atlantic Computers plc.

  3. Atlantic Computer Systems plc.

  4. Astra Holdings plc.

  5. London United Investments plc.

  6. Norton Group plc.

  Seventeen reports have been published in relation to inspections begun since 1979.

  Questions
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central of 23 January,Official Report, column 329, what has been the cost of the 436 questions asked by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on accountancy during the last two years.

  Mr. Redwood
  Detailed information on the cost of providing each answer is not recorded, but the total cost to my Department has probably been between £30,000 and £60,000 in the period since 1 December 1989.

  Environmental Sensor Technologies
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the laboratory of the Government chemist received the report on environmental sensor technologies commissioned by his Department from Robert Bogue and Partners; to whom and through what outlets the report will be made available; and what was the cost of the consultancy with Robert Bogue and Partners for the preparation of the report.

  Mr. Leigh
  The report on environmental sensor technologies was received by the laboratory of the Government chemist on 3 September 1990. The findings of the consultancy were presented at an open seminar held in London on 28 November 1990. Copies of a short report 578
  which summarises the findings of the consultancy are available free on request from the laboratory of the Government chemist. A more detailed report can be purchased from the laboratory of the Government chemist. The cost of the consultancy is commercial-in-confidence information.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the value of export credits granted to Iraq in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 17 October 1990,Official Report, column 837.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ministerial visits have been made by his Department to Iraq since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Eight.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the value of export and import trade with Iraq expressed at constant prices in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  These figures from 1979 to 1988 are available from the "Annual Abstract of Statistics"—1990 Edition, tables 12·5 and 12·6. From 1989 to date, the figures are available from the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" tables 15·5 and 15·6.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much has been spent by his Department on activities arising from trade fairs in Iraq since 1979;

  (2) if he will give details of financial and technical support supplied to visiting trade delegations from the United Kingdom to Iraq in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Details of Department of Trade and Industry programme expenditure on financial support for trade delegations is not available for the years 1979–80 to 1983–84. Net expenditure on events opening in subsequent years, with that on trade fairs identified separately is set out in the table:

  Assistance provided under the outward and inward trade missions, trade fairs and seminars scheme

  Year

  £ thousands

  Of which trade fairs £ thousands

  1984–85

  145·6

  135·3

  1985–86

  122·6

  108·6

  1986–87

  158·7

  149·7

  1987–88

  60·3

  47·9

  1988–89

  238·6

  221·8

  1989–90

  559·6

  483·6

  1990–91

  4

  —

  These delegations received the additional support normally provided from Her Majesty's Government.

  Walter Somers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what companies were mentioned in documents forwarded to the Department by Walter Somers and
  579
  Forgemasters Engineering Ltd. in connection with the inquiries made of the export licensing division since 1988; and in what capacity they were mentioned.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is not the practice to reveal details of individual licensing applications.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries the export licensing division has received since the beginning of 1988 from (1) Walter Somers and (2) Forgemasters Engineering Ltd.; what products the inquiries concerned; which require export licences; and which were deemed to have a potential military application.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is not the practice to reveal details of individual licensing inquiries.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Cambodia
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Nations agencies have received funding from Her Majesty's Government for work in Cambodia; if the £1·25 million announced to support United Nations work in Cambodia has been fully utilised by United Nations agencies; and if more funds will be made available to them.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since the Government reviewed their policy towards Cambodia in November 1989 the following allocations have been made to United Nations agencies:

  1989–90
  UNICEF—£0·25 million for immunisation, water supply and sanitation, pre-primary education and textbook production.

  1990–91
  UNICEF—£0·5 million for health, nutrition, water and sanitation.
  World Health Organisation £0·2 million anti-malaria programme.
  World Food Programme—£0·3 million for rice in support of UNICEF's well and pond digging programme.
  These funds are being used by the agencies to support their current programmes in Cambodia. We are monitoring progress and we are prepared in due course to consider providing further support for their work.

  Refugee Relief
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which nations have been refused refugee relief in the last three years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

  International Organisations (Subscriptions)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost of United Kingdom subscriptions to international organisations in each of the last five years at constant prices.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The total cost to the United Kingdom aid programme of contributions and subscriptions to international organisations in each of the last five years at constant 1989 prices was as follows:
  580

  £ million

  1985

  612

  1986

  611

  1987

  596

  1988

  702

  1989

  674

  Foreign Investment Advisory Service
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of funding of the foreign investment advisory service; and how many staff it has.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The foreign investment advisory service has received funding as follows.

  Period

  US$

  1 July 1988 to 30 June 1989 (actual)

  2,182,000

  1 July 1989 to 30 June 1990 (estimated)

  3,360,000

  1 July 1990.to 30 June 1991 (projected)

  3,946,000

  In the fiscal year ending 30 June 1990 FIAS employed the equivalent of eight staff years and seven consultant years.

  Cuba
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the purposes for which the United Kingdom has given aid to Cuba since 1987.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A total of £5,000 was spent in 1988 and in 1989 under a gift scheme run by Her Majesty's ambassador in Havana: the items involved were principally books and information equipment for local institutions. Data for 1990 is not yet available.

  Assistance Unit
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are currently working within the joint FCO/ODA assistance unit.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Twenty-three.

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current advisory board members of each of the United Kingdom know-how funds.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The composition of the advisory boa rd for central and eastern Europe is as follows:

  Mr. George Robertson, MP

  Sir Russell Johnston, MP

  Mr. Nigel Forman, MP

  Mr. Gavin Laird, CBE

  Dr. Zbigniew Pelczynski

  Dr. John Howell

  Mr. Angus Cargill

  Sir Frank Lampl

  Dr. Dennis Deletant

  Mr. Ralph Land

  Dr. Edwina Moreton

  Dr. N. S. Wooding, CBE

  Ms. Hella Pick

  581

  Professor Crampton

  Mr. John Murphy

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any of his officials are currently advising east European countries on privatisation policies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Advice on privatisation in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia is being given, not directly by officials but by British financial consultancies and individuals under contracts paid for by the know-how fund.

THE ARTS

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since an announcement was last made on the subject to the House.

  Mr. Renton
  Since my announcement on 19 December 1990, at column 175, I am pleased to announce that three further offers have been accepted. These consist of a collection of photographs by and of Cecil Beaton, a collection of private and Post Office telegraph stamps of Great Britain—1854 to 1881—and a collection of 38 paintings connected with East Anglia including a number of works by Pieter Tillemans together with a George III cabinet. These offers will satisfy £125,331, £113,000 and £211,552·80 respectively. No decision has yet been taken on the allocation of the Beaton photographs or the stamp collection, but the paintings and cabinet will be allocated to the Norwich Castle museum in accordance with the condition on which the offer was made. As with previous "hybrid" offers, the Norwich Castle museum agreed to pay the offerer an element of the difference between the tax liability and the special price.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what method he intends to legislate for the proposed privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Needham
  Since the matter is in the "transferred" field, it is proposed to legislate for the privatisation of NIE by an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. A small number of consequential amendments to certain United Kingdom enactments may need to be effected by a separate order under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Any necessary taxation provisions, as "excepted" matters, would be contained in a Finance Bill.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what specific measures his Department has taken to promote energy efficiency; what further measures his Department intends to take to promote energy efficiency;582
  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. Needham
  On 6 December 1990 the Department of Economic Development issued a consultative paper on energy efficiency in Northern Ireland. It set out the extensive initiatives already under way to promote energy efficiency in the Province; by all other interested parties through a "Partnership in Action" programme. Specific recommendations for further action were made and comments on the consultative paper have been requested by 1 March 1991. A copy of the consultative paper has been placed in the Library.

  Since 1984 Northern Ireland has had its own interdepartmental committee on energy efficiency. It monitors annual energy use by Government and submits reports to the Secretary of State. In addition, Northern Ireland participates in the United Kingdom-wide ministerial group on energy efficiency. Moreover, schemes of assistance for low-income households and the best practice programme are operative in Northern Ireland.

  In the calendar year 1990 expenditure on energy in the Northern Ireland Government office estate was £2·1 million which represents a 5 per cent. reduction compared with the previous calendar year in 1990 price terms.

  Constituencies
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the size of the electorate in each Northern Ireland constituency; and what they were immediately following the last revision of parliamentary boundaries in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of electors in each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland on the electoral register in 1990 and in 1983—the first register with details of the revised parliamentary constituencies—was:

  Constituency

  1990 Register

  1983 Register

  Belfast East

  53,933

  56,065

  Belfast North

  56,991

  61,703

  Belfast South

  53,516

  54,115

  Belfast West

  57,456

  60,404

  East Antrim

  63,025

  59,372

  East Londonderry

  75,407

  68,215

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  70,535

  68,913

  Foyle

  74,558

  67,918

  Lagan Valley

  71,904

  60,685

  Mid Ulster

  69,415

  64,840

  Newry and Armagh

  68,154

  62,896

  North Antrim

  69,562

  63,951

  North Down

  68,496

  62,194

  Strangford

  68,242

  60,813

  South Antrim

  66,763

  59,931

  South Down

  75,364

  67,723

  Upper Bann

  67,281

  61,447

  Totals

  1,130,602

  1,061,185

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to give discretion to social fund officers, during spells of severe cold weather, to make cold weather payments in cases of need.
  583
  Mr. Hanley
  This is not in accordance with the regulation of the scheme.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the last occasion on which cold weather payments were made by the Department of Health and Social Services; how many recipients received payments; and what was the total cost to the Department of Health and Social Services.

  Mr. Hanley
  Cold weather payments totalling £233,194 were made to 46,646 people in respect of the winter of 1986–87.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to grant cold weather payments to (i) pensioners, (ii) those in receipt of income support and (iii) those in receipt of other benefits.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to alter the present scheme which provides for a payment of £5 for any period of seven consecutive days during which the average temperature is 0 deg. Celsius or below. Those eligible are people getting income support which includes one of the pensioner or disability premiums or who have a child under five living with them. People aged 60 or over can have savings of up to £1,000 without the payment being affected. For other claimants the corresponding limit is £500.

  Domestic Heating Fuel
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average increase in the price of home heating fuel since 2 August 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  The increase in prices of home heating oils peaked at the end of October 1990 at between 70 and 90 per cent. above those at 2 August 1990. Current prices are 33 to 38 per cent. above those on 2 August 1990. Some smokeless coal prices have risen by 14 to 17 per cent. in the same period, which included the removal of summer discounts on 8 September 1990.

  Government Appointees
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of all Government-appointed nominees to each education and library board since its formation, giving the year of appointment and the length of service in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 16 January 1991]: The education and library boards were established in 1973 and are now in their fifth term of office having been reconstituted every four years. The information requested about the membership of the boards during their first four terms could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. All board members are appointed by the head of the department, regardless of the source of their nomination. The current membership of the boards, excluding district council members who are selected for appointment by their councils, is as follows:

  Western Board

  Members appointed July 1989

  Mr. S. J. Burnside1

  Mr. T. B. Campbell

  Rev. R. W. W. Clarke1

  Rev. C. Clerkin

  Rev. O. Crilly1

  584

  Rev. P. Crilly

  Rev. K. J. Devlin (resigned 12 December 1990)1

  Mr. M. J. Fegan1

  Mrs. M. T. Grant

  Rt. Rev. B. D. A. Hannon1

  Mrs. S. C. Hogg1

  Mrs. T. Kelly

  Mr. P. Little

  Mr. J. S. R. Maxwell

  Mr. J. C. A. McGinnis (resigned 23 May 1990)

  Mrs. B. B. McIvor1

  Mrs. S. M. O'Kane1

  Mr. P. I. O'Neill

  Mr. R. E. Wright

  Replacements appointed since July 1989

  Mrs. M. T. Breslin (appointed 6 November 1990)

  One vacancy to be filled

  Southern Board

  Members appointed July.1989

  Rev. J. M. Barton1

  Mr. F. H. Bell1

  Very Rev. J. Bradley1

  Mr. M. P. Campbell1

  Rev. D. Chillingworth

  Mrs. M. P. Faulkner1

  Mrs. W. J. Gaffney

  Mr. W. F. Gillespie1

  Rev. Bro. L. S. Kelly

  Mr. A. J. Lavery1

  Mr. W. K. Lowry

  Rev. S. A. Matthews1

  Mrs. R. Moore (resigned 19 May 1990)1

  Mr. T. 0. Mulligan1

  Mr. F. G. K. McCann

  Sr. O. McConville1

  Mrs. J. McCool

  Very Rev. Canon C. McEntegart1

  Mr. E. W. Napier1

  Mrs. M. O'Hagan

  Mrs. S. E. Walker

  Replacements appointed since July 1989

  Mr. J. H. McParland (appointed 14 January 1991)

  South-eastern board

  Members appointed July 1989

  Mr. R. A. Adams (resigned 31 December 1989)

  Mr. S. A. Costello

  Rev. T. V. Craig

  Mr. S. I. Davidson1

  Rev. S. M. J. Dickson

  Mrs. L. P. Douglas1

  Rev. W. H. Gray1

  Miss R. B. Lavery

  Mr. W. D. Linton1

  Rev. G. W. Loane (resigned 28 November 1990)1

  Mr. S. Mackell (resigned 30 November 1989)1

  Mr. W. J. Masterson

  Mr. P. McAleenan

  Mr. W. G. McCourt1

  Mr. D. W. G. Nesbitt1

  Mr. P. O'Donoghue (deceased 30 July 1989)1

  Rev. Prof. T. S. Reid1

  Mr. J. A. Savage (deceased 28 December 1989)1

  Mr. H. R. Small1

  Rev. K. J. Smyth

  Rev. D. Whyte

  Replacements appointed since July 1989

  Mrs. M. B. Donnelly (appointed 12 February 1990)

  Mrs. M. Doris (appointed 1 February 1990)

  Mr. K. Kilpatrick (appointed 5 September 1990)

  Mrs. D. Tennis (appointed 25 April 1990)

  One vacancy to be filled

  North-Eastern Board

  Members Appointed July 1989

  Rev. D. Clarke

  Rev. R. Devine

  Mr. J. Donaghy1

  Rev. Chancellor J. A. Fair1

  585

  Miss A. Graham1

  Mrs. P. A. Lerwill1

  Mr. C. Lynn1

  Mr. W. F. Lutton1

  Mr. J. Meehan

  Mr. W. H. McKeown1

  Mr. A. Patterson

  Rev. R. F. S. Poots1

  Mrs. K. Regan1

  Mr. N. J. Russell1

  Mr. T. F. Scullion1

  Mrs. M. C. Shaw

  Mr. R. Waterman1

  Mrs. D. M. White1

  Rev. J. Williamson

  Rev. J. R. Wilson1

  Rev. T. H. Wilson1

  Replacements appointed since July 1989

  None

  Education and Library Board Members Appointed for 5th Term (ie July 1989 to June 1993)

  Belfast Board

  1. Members appointed July 1989

  Mr. A. C. Cochrane

  Mr. J. J. Collins

  Rev. T. D. Cooper

  Canon E. P. M. Elliott (deceased 19 October 1990)1

  Mr. P. B. Finn

  Mr. M. P. Fitzmaurice

  Mr. J. Lally

  Mrs. E. G. Lyttle

  Miss T. A. Magee

  Mr. O. J. Magill1

  Mr. J. G. Maguire

  Rev. M. Murphy1

  Rev. J. McAllister1

  Mr. L. McBrinn

  Mr. D. J. McGuinness

  Mrs M. F. McNally1

  Miss A. McSparran1

  Rev. E. O'Brien1

  Mrs. A. M. Odling-Smee

  Rev. Dr. J. Thompson

  Mrs. J. M. V. Thompson

  Replacements appointed since July 1989

  None

  One vacancy to be filled

  1 Indicates members who also served on the boards during all or part of the previous term—July 1985 to June 1989)

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education, Bexley
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what representations he has received concerning the future of Howbury Grange school, Erith;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the development of secondary education within the London borough of Bexley.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received one letter, which expressed concern about the future of the Howbury Grange school. No other representations have been received concerning the development of secondary education in Bexley.

  Capital Expenditure
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what formula English counties' individual allocation of capital expenditure on education for 1991–92 was calculated.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what expenditure assumptions he made for commitments to projects in Devon started in 1990–91 or earlier when determining his capital authorisations for Devon for 1991–92.

  Mr. Fallon
  In determining each authority's annual capital guideline, my right hon. and learned Friend applied the objective criteria set out in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 17 December 1990,Official Report, columns 41–50.

  For committed expenditure, account was taken of the second and third year costs of projects and work allowed for in the 1989–90 and 1990–91 allocations and annual capital guidelines for Devon, as in all other English LEAs. For plans to provide new school places in areas of population growth, cost multipliers, reflecting the average cost to authorities of providing a new school place, as well as different regional building costs, were applied to the net deficit of places indicated by each authority in its capital plans. This amount was then phased over three years beginning in 1991–92 in the ratio 35:50:15.

  For projects to remove surplus places, full account of authorities' actual cash plans for building works were allowed for when these arose from approved statutory proposals; or in the case of projects unrelated to statutory proposals, where these were cost-effective.

  After allowing for a number of projects at special schools and allowing for authorities' liabilities arising from agreed projects at voluntary aided schools the resources remaining for schools were distributed to each authority for improvement/replacement work at schools on the basis of a formula. This formula took account of the authority's cash plans for improvement/replacement work, its pupil numbers and the numbers of substandard places it had.

  Capital allocations for local authority further education—LAFE—for 1991–92 were determined as follows:

  a. allocations for bids for major building projects—those valued at £200,000 or more—were made on the basis of value for money and in competition with other bids; and

  b. allocations for minor works and equipment were made on the basis of weighted full-time equivalent student numbers and the value of bids.

  Commitments in LAFE are limited solely to allocations arising from the further years of major building projects which the Department has specifically approved as part of the process which I have already outlined, with the whole being subject to the availability of sufficient funding in any particular year.

  The figures set for each of these component parts were then added together to provide the annual capital guideline.

  Refugees (Course Fees)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will permit all refugees to pay home student fees for courses of over 15 hours per week.
  587
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under existing arrangements, those granted refugee status by the Home Office are afforded home fee status for full-time courses of further and higher education of not less than 15 hours per week; in cases where they receive a mandatory award, this includes payment of their tuition fees.

  Spelling
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research has been undertaken on behalf of his Department on methods of teaching spelling.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Spelling is a vital skill for pupils to learn, but I do not prescribe the methods by which it is taught. My Department has not commissioned research on the subject.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice has been given by his Department or by the Council for the Accreditation of Teachers Education to teacher trainees on methods of teaching spelling.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None. I expect teacher training institutions to introduce their students to a broad range of sensible methods.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in what manner the information and experience of the adult literary and basic skills unit as to the teaching of spelling has been communicated by his Department to teacher trainees.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The unit publishes a range of materials, which are available to all, including teacher trainers and student teachers. But the unit's responsibility and expertise relates to the teaching of adults rather than children.

  Capital Authorisations (Devon)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) in determining Devon's capital authorisation for 1991–92, what assumption he made as to the amount which Devon could raise by way of capital receipts from disposal of land and other assets, in the current property market;

  (2) in determining the quantum of Devon's capital authorisations for 1991–92, what assumption he made as to Devon's ability to augment this by funding from its revenue budget.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend took no account of capital receipts likely to be realised nor of possible transfers from the revenue budget in deciding the level of Devon's annual capital guideline for education for 1991–92. However, the size of Devon county council's basic credit approval, which is the limit to which it can borrow to fund all its capital programmes, reflects an estimate of Devon's likely receipts position.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which of the projects submitted to his Department by Devon education authority as part of the bids process for capital authorisation for 1991–92 were not taken into account in the final capital authorisation of £7·7 million.
  588
  Mr. Fallon
  Devon's annual capital guideline bid was considered against the objective criteria set out in detail in the Department's letter of 31 May which sought bids for capital expenditure in 1991–92.

  Allowance was made for the cost of providing new school places in respect of all of the individual projects listed in the authority's capital plans. Of projects to remove surplus school places, that at Teignmouth community college was not allowed for. No specific allowance was made for any individual improvement or replacement projects. Such work falls to be covered from the resources distributed by formula to all authorities. No allowance was made for the special education project at Exmouth Hillcrest school nor in respect of the authority's liability for those projects at voluntary aided schools which were not approved for a start in 1991–92.

  The further education allocations for Devon education authority which were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend last December did not cover the capital cost arising from statutory school reorganisation in Tiverton. My right hon. and learned Friend will shortly be considering the award of a supplementary credit approval for the 1991–92 financial year for the proposed new tertiary college on the site of East Devon college of further education.

  It is, of course, entirely for Devon to determine its priorities and which projects should proceed.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account he took of the capital costs of implementing the reorganisations he has made for Axminster and Tiverton when determining the capital authorisation for Devon for the next financial year; and what figures were used when allocating the capital authorisation for Devon.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Tiverton proposals had not been decided at the time that Devon education authority's annual capital guideline for 1991–92 was announced. As is normal practice, a small proportion of the capital costs of the building work arising from the proposals, as set out in the authority's 1991–92 capital bid, was included in the annual capital guideline. The balance was held back to be issued as supplementary credit approvals, if the proposals were approved. The authority has presented some revised phasing of the costing following approval, and in line with those we shall issue a supplementary credit approval of £342,000 for the Tiverton project in 1991–92.

  The building works arising from the Axminster proposals were put forward by the authority as improvement/replacement work in its 1991–92 capital bid. These costs have not, therefore, been covered individually in the annual capital guideline, but will fall to be met from the formula distribution for such work made to all authorities.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what capital authorisations for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools he has made for 1991–92, under the headings (i) all local education authorities in England and Wales, (ii) all counties in England and Wales and (iii) Devon; and if he will indicate for each of the above headings, the number of pupils of statutory school age in January 1990.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information that my hon. Friend has requested will take time to put together. I shall write to him when it is available.

  Iraqi Students
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will be in a position to write to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, in respect of Iraqi students, following his reply of 17 January,Official Report, column 555; and if he will publish this correspondence in the Official Report.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 29 January.

  School Visits
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report details of official visits which he has made to schools, with date and purpose of each visit and the type of school visited.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On 26 November 1990 I visited Ribston Hall grant-maintained grammar school. On 30 January 1991 I visited Stockington first and middle schools, Nuneaton, and Alderman Smith high school, Nuneaton. I have met school pupils and teachers on several other occasions since my appointment on 5 November 1990.

  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the level of funding for SERC for the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 in(a) current and (b) constant prices.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The SERC's grant in aid from this Department was as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Cash

  367·595

  406·162

  440·752

  1990–91 prices

  422·307

  438·654

  440·752

  Science Budget
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what allowance he has made for the effect of Swiss and other overseas inflation on(a) the CERN budget and (b) the physics element of the United Kingdom science budget in the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The United Kingdom's annual contribution to the CERN budget, and other expenditure on research in the field of physics, is met from grant in aid to the Science and Engineering Research Council allocated annually in the light of the Government's overall decisions on public expenditure and following advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. It is for the SERC to determine the distribution of the resources it receives, including those to be directed to international subscriptions for CERN and other organisations. For this purpose, the council will make its own assumptions concerning rates of inflation in the United Kingdom and other relevant countries. The level of grant in aid announced for the financial year 1990–91 was £440·8 million, representing an increase of £34·6 million—8·5 per cent.—over the previous year.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the average central annual maintenance grant for grant-maintained schools based on section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988 returns for local education authorities for which returns are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The average full-year equivalent central costs component of annual maintenance grant for the existing 50 grant-maintained schools in 1990–91 is £203,286. Central annual maintenance grant is calculated in accordance with the Education (Grant-maintained Schools) (Finance) Regulations 1990. These calculations take account of data provided by schools and local education authorities, including section 42 returns from LEAs.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the representations which he has received on his paper "The Proposed Arrangements for the Calculation of Annual Maintenance Grant for Grant Maintained Schools for 1991–92"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  By 29 January we had received written comments on our consultation paper from 42 LEAs, 11 schools, and six others. My right hon. and learned Friend will be considering the comments received.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has yet received the report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions in 1991–92

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have now received the fourth report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions. Its main recommendations are a 9·5 per cent. increase in the standard scale for classroom teachers
  a 12·75 per cent. increase in the pay spine for heads and deputies
  a 30 per cent. increase in the value of the five rates of incentive allowances
  an extra 9,100 incentive allowances for the 1991–92 academic year, so that nearly 200,000 teachers will hold the allowances
  a 50 per cent. increase in the upper limit of discretionary scale points to be awarded on top of the standard scale for good classroom performance
  a 9·38 per cent. increase in the value of London allowances and the inner London supplement from 1 July 1990 greater local discretion about the pay of heads and deputies
  an amendment to teachers' conditions of service to require them to co-operate in new arrangements for their appraisal to be established by regulations.

  The committee's recommendations address all the issues that my predecessor asked it to consider when setting this year's remit. They should substantially help the recruitment, retention and motivation of sufficient teachers of the quality the country needs. I am most grateful to the committee for all the work which it put into its report.

  The recommendations offer considerable flexibility to make discretionary and selective payments as governing bodies and LEAs judge best in the light of local

  591
  circumstances. They are directed towards recognition of good teaching, extra responsibility and scarce qualifications. They will improve career prospects and incentives to promotion within the profession. The committee emphasised the benefits of appraisal for individual teachers, for heads, for the management of schools and ultimately for pupils. It also recognised that appraisal might have a link, although indirect, with pay.

  I propose to accept all the committee's recommendations, but, as for the doctors, nurses and other groups covered by the review bodies except the armed forces, to stage their introduction over the period up to 1 December 1991.

  The decision to stage was taken in view of the size of the recommendations and for wider economic reasons. It now seems overwhelmingly likely that inflation will fall to 5·5 per cent. by the end of the year. I believe that it is right to reflect the sharp drop in pay expectations in the rest of the economy by the staging of this generous award for teachers.

  I propose to increase all pay scales by 7·5 per cent. from 1 April 1991. I propose to implement from the same date the committee's proposals for greater local discretion about the pay of heads and deputies, and to backdate to 1 July 1990 increases in London allowances. The increase of 30 per cent. in the value of incentive allowances would be introduced on 1 December 1991, as would the further increases in the scales needed to bring them up to the full amounts recommended by the committee. The extra 9,100 incentive allowances proposed by the committee would be introduced from September 1991, as it recommended. The committee's recommendations would thus be implemented in full on 1 December 1991. Overall, the increases in the pay bills for school teachers in England and Wales flowing from these proposals would be 8·4 per cent. in 1991–92 and 11·3 per cent. in a full year.

  The education standard spending totals we announced last autumn comfortably allow for the cost of implementing these recommendations as well as for the follow-through costs of the 1990–91 pay award. These totals also include an element for the exercise of local discretion introduced following the recommendations of the committee's previous report and of this one which we are assuming will add a further 1·5 per cent. to the pay bill. This leaves plenty of scope for well-managed authorities to find resources for the other pressing demands on the education budget.

  I am publishing the committee's report today and have initiated the consultations required by section 3(1) of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 on my detailed proposals for implementing its recommendations.

ENERGY

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of Nuclear Electric concerning(a) construction delays in the schedule drawn up for Sizewell B, (b) the failure of the computer programme design consultants to meet their target in completing the main safety computer programme and (c) the revised costings produced by Nuclear Electric and its consultants for the decommissioning and waste management programme for the Sizewell B plant.
  592
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The construction of Sizewell B is a matter for Nuclear Electric plc. I understand from the company that the project is eight months ahead of programme. It remains Nuclear Electric's intention that the software for the integrated systems for control and operation of the station should be available to enable commissioning of the station in accordance with the project programme. The latest costs available for decommissioning of Sizewell B or its waste management programme are those presented to the Hinkley Point C public inquiry.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the final capital cost of the Sizewell B nuclear plant on commissioning expressed in(a) March 1987 prices and (b) present-day prices; what was the estimate 15 months ago; and if he will indicate the reasons for the differences.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In his letter of 26 June 1990 to the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee, the Secretary of State gave the revised estimated cost to completion of Sizewell B as £2,030 million, April 1987 prices, together with a full explanation of the reasons for the revision of the estimate. This remains the latest estimated cost to completion for the project. Over the period from April 1987, the inflation in power station construction costs has been slightly less than in retail prices.

  Atomic Safeguards
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has concerning the work of the standing advisory group on safeguards implementation organised under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The standing advisory group on safeguards implementation provides advice to the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Its work is confidential to the group.

  THORP
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to institute a near-real time nuclear materials accountancy arrangement for the safeguards provisions at the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Detailed arrangements for safeguards at specific sites are confidential. However, BNFL is developing near real time materials accountancy systems in support of safeguards on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—THORP. Technical reports relating to this technique have been published by BNFL. Details of these publications can be obtained from the company.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he possesses concerning the applicability of Euratom nuclear safeguards to the new BNFL thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield will be fully subject to Euratom safeguards under the Euratom treaty of 1957, as are all other civil nuclear facilities.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when an assessment was last made of the environmental implications of a serious leak from Sellafield, including the localities which would be most affected; and if he will publish its findings.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Assessments of the safety of operations at Sellafield, which include assessments of the possible environmental implications of serious leaks, are the responsibility of BNFL in accordance with conditions attached to the nuclear site licence. These assessments are independently examined by the regulatory authorities in the regular discharge of their statutory functions.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the level to which the public sector is taking advantage of private sector energy efficiency management services and third-party financing for energy efficiency investment; and if he will make a statement on progress.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In taking forward the energy efficiency campaign on the Government estate where Departments are working towards achieving 15 per cent. savings in their energy bills over the next five years, my Energy Efficiency Office employed an energy efficiency management services company to assist Departments in the preparation of their energy strategies. The majority of Departments continue to seek advice from Property Holdings and the Property Services Agency on energy efficiency initiatives, but a number have also commissioned advice from private sector companies.

  I understand that a number of Government Departments are presently considering whether third-party financing is a suitable option for their estates. I also understand that certain authorities and local authorities have entered into contracts for third-party financing.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 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. Wakeham
  [pursuant to the reply, 24 January 1991, c. 276–77]: The table and explanatory footnotes show how effectively the main Government Departments used energy in their HQ type offices for the period April to September 1990.

  The league table and performance ratios are an important part of the Government estate campaign where all Departments are working towards achieving savings of 15 per cent. of their energy bill over the next five years.

  Department

  Performance Ratio

  Position

  Welsh Office

  0·750

  1

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  0·790

  2

  Scottish Office

  0·830

  3

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  0·860

  4

  Energy

  0·920

  5

  Education and Science

  0·920

  5

  Employment

  0·950

  7

  594

  Department

  Performance Ratio

  Position

  Home Office

  1·010

  8

  Ministry of Defence

  1·050

  9

  Environment

  1·070

  10

  National Savings

  1·090

  11

  Inland Revenue

  1·120

  12

  Customs and Excise

  1·130

  13

  Health

  1·150

  14

  Northern Ireland Office

  1·189

  15

  Transport

  1·192

  16

  Trade and Industry

  1·210

  17

  Foreign Office

  1290

  18

  Treasury

  1·440

  19

  Social Security

  1·450

  20

  Notes:

  1. The league table of performance is based on Departments' main(HQ) office buildings. In some cases this represents only a small percentage of a Department's energy consumption. Some Departments have calculated their performance indicators using partly estimated data.

  2. The performance indicators and yardsticks for these offices are expressed in cost terms using average 1990 prices, ie 6p/KWh for electricity and I -25p/KWh for all fossil fuels.

  3. Yardsticks for these offices are as follows:

  April-September £

  Annual £

  Naturally ventilated offices

  2·50/m2

  7·70/m2

  Air conditioned office

  7–00/m2

  15–50/m2

  Computer suites

  70·00/m2

  140·00/m2

  4. A building's energy consumption is adjusted where applicable for regional variations in climate and annual weather differences, divided by floor area and then divided by the appropriate yardstick to obtain its cost performance indicator. A department's overall Performance Ratio is obtained by adding together all its buildings' performance indicators (which are weighted according to respective consumption).

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what policy considerations will determine whether to proceed with the flotation of the two generating companies in the event of a Gulf war precipitating a stock market fall.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  All relevant factors will be taken into consideration at the appropriate time.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Baltic States
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received regarding actions by the Soviet military in the Baltic states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received more than 50 letters from Members of Parliament on this subject, and a large number of letters and petitions from members of the public and from Baltic emigré groups in the United Kingdom. We have also met the Foreign Ministers of Lithuania and Latvia, who have set out their views on the present situation. We continue to urge all concerned to follow the path of negotiation. In particular, we call on the Soviet authorities to refrain from the use of force or coercion.
  595
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken concerning the problems between the Baltic states and the USSR; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made our concern at recent events in the Baltic states very clear. We are pressing the Soviet leadership, both bilaterally and with partners and allies, to refrain from the further use of threats or force. We are urging all involved to undertake serious negotiations. This is the only way to find a lasting solution to this dispute.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of(a) the trade and aid embargo against Cambodia enacted under United Nations resolution 34/22 (1979), (b) the initiative by the Thai Government in respect of the provision of neutral camps in border areas and (c) the supply of arms through countries bordering Cambodia; and what steps he is taking to promote a ceasefire.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Nations General Assembly resolution 34/22 does not refer to a trade and aid embargo against Cambodia. Nor do we operate one. If and when neutral camps in border areas under UN administration are created as part of a comprehensive political settlement, we would be ready to play our part in their establishment. A ceasefire and the cessation of all outside military assistance are integral parts of the draft comprehensive settlement document agreed between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and the co-chairmen of the Paris conference on Cambodia in November 1990.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's ambassador in China about the treatment of pro-democracy demonstrators detained in prison.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's embassy in Peking reports regularly on all aspects of China's domestic politics including the detention and the recent trials of those involved in the 1989 demonstrations. We and our European partners have expressed our concern to the Chinese Government over the fate of the detainees on a number of occasions.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's ambassador in the Soviet Union about human rights abuses involving people of Latvian and Lithuanian origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We receive regular reports from Her Majesty's embassy in Moscow about all aspects of the Baltic states, including matters affecting the civil and political rights of the Baltic peoples. On behalf of the Twelve, the Luxembourg presidency has invoked the CDH—conference sur la dimension humaine—mechanism, which enables CSCE countries to raise cases of human rights abuses with other member states.
  596
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's ambassador in Chile about human rights abuses in that country.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have had no reports of human rights abuses since the inauguration of the democratically-elected Government of President Aylwin, which is committed to upholding human rights. It has established a commission to investigate past abuses, released most political prisoners, and changed the law to permit the release of others.

  Boat People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the numbers of boat people in Hong Kong; and how many there were 12 months ago.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 24 January 1991 there were 51,871 Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. On 30 January 1990 there were 55,533.

  Hong Kong
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that any new airport for Hong Kong will be served by a rail link.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This is a matter for the Hong Kong Government.

  Scholarships (Eastern Europe)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will spend on scholarships for students from eastern Europe during 1991–92.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  For 1991–92, we expect to allocate £1.2 million under the FCO scholarships and awards scheme for the provision of some 300 scholarships to enable students from eastern Europe—not including the Soviet Union—to study in the United Kingdom.

  As many as two thirds of these awards will be jointly funded with United Kingdom institutions, private trusts and private sector partners.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of the BBC World Service in terms of pounds per output hour, at constant prices, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Cost per output hour at 1990 prices

  Year

  £

  1980–81

  2,117

  1981–82

  2,078

  1982–83

  2,076

  1983–84

  2,118

  1984–85

  2,207

  1985–86

  2,185

  1986–87

  2,079

  597

  Year

  £

  1987–88

  2,104

  1988–89

  2,401

  1989–90

  2,278

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the hours of output figure per member of staff of the BBC World Service in each year since 1983

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Output hours per member of staff

  Year

  Hours

  1983–84

  13·3

  1984–85

  13·2

  1985–86

  12·4

  1986–87

  12·7

  1987–88

  13·2

  1988–89

  13·6

  1989–90

  14·1

  In 1986, 71 staff posts were transferred from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the BBC world service.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current shortfall in staffing levels in Foreign and Commonwealth offices overseas posts by grade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is no such shortfall: it is our policy to fill all posts overseas.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each of the last five years the number of secondments(a) into and (b) out of his Department; and if he will give details of which Departments were involved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Tables I to V contain details of inward and outward secondments between other Government Departments and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office over the last five years. Secondments between the Overseas Development Administration and diplomatic wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are shown separately, as are secondments to the Cabinet Office.

  In addition to exchanges with other Whitehall Departments, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an interchange programme with the private sector. Details of these secondments over the last five years are contained in tables VI and VII.

  Table I (Part a)

  Number of DS Officers on loan from the FCO to the Home civil service at 31 December 1990

  Receiving department

  Number

  Treasury

  1

  MAFF

  1

  ECGD

  —

  DTI

  9

  NIO

  1

  MOD

  8

  Office of Fair Trading

  1

  598

  Receiving department

  Number

  Law Officers Department

  1

  Cabinet Office

  12

  ODA

  1

  Home Office

  1

  Privy Council Office

  1

  Other

  4

  41

  Table 1 (Part b)

  Number of Home civil service Officers on loan to the FCO at 31 December 1990

  Parent department

  Number

  DTI

  28

  MAFF

  11

  MOD

  23

  Employment

  5

  Home Office

  93

  Treasury

  7

  DOE

  —

  Northern Ireland CS

  2

  NIO

  4

  Scottish Office

  1

  CAA

  1

  Energy

  1

  Customs and Excise

  11

  ODA

  23

  Transport

  3

  Cabinet Office

  1

  Department of Health

  2

  216

  Table II (Part a)

  Number of DS Officers on loan to the Home civil service at 31 December 1989

  Receiving department

  Number

  Treasury

  1

  MAFF

  1

  ECGD

  1

  DTI

  7

  NIO

  2

  MOD

  8

  Office of Fair Trading

  1

  Law Officers Department

  1

  Cabinet Office

  11

  ODA

  5

  Other

  1

  39

  Table II (Part b)

  Number of home civil service officers on loan to the FCO at 31 December 1989

  Parent department

  Number

  DTI

  26

  MAFF

  10

  MOD

  22

  Employment

  6

  Home Office

  70

  Treasury

  8

  DOE

  1

  Northern Ireland CS

  2

  NIO

  4

  Scottish Office

  1

  CAA

  1

  Energy

  1

  Customs and Excise

  9

  ODA

  26

  Transport

  3

  Cabinet Office

  1

  Department of Health

  2

  599

  Parent department

  Number

  Total

  193

  Table III (Part a)

  Number of DS officers on loan to the home civil service at 31 December 1988

  Receiving department

  Number

  ECGD

  1

  DTI

  10

  NIO

  2

  MOD

  4

  MPO

  3

  Office of Fair Trading

  1

  Law Officers Department

  1

  Cabinet Office

  10

  ODA

  4

  Home Office

  1

  Treasury

  1

  Total

  38

  Table III (Part b)

  Number of home civil service officers on loan to the DS at 31 December 1988

  Parent department

  Number

  DTI

  23

  MAFF

  11

  MOD

  22

  Employment

  8

  Home Office

  73

  Treasury

  6

  DOE

  1

  Northern Ireland Civil

  Service

  3

  NIO

  4

  Scottish Office

  1

  Civil Aviation Authority

  2

  Energy

  2

  Customs and Excise

  10

  ODA

  23

  Department of Transport

  3

  Cabinet Office

  1

  193

  Table IV (Part a)

  Number of DS officers on loan to the Home civil service at 31 December 1987

  Receiving department

  Number

  ECGD

  1

  DTI

  9

  NIO

  1

  MOD

  4

  MPO

  4

  Office of Fair Trading

  2

  Law Officers Department

  1

  Cabinet Office

  11

  ODA

  4

  Home Office

  1

  38

  Table IV Part (b)

  Number of Home Civil Service Officers on loan to the DS at 31 December 1987

  Parent department

  Number

  DTI

  22

  MAFF

  11

  MOD

  21

  Employment

  8

  Home Office

  65

  600

  Parent department

  Number

  Treasury

  6

  DOE

  1

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  4

  NIO

  3

  Scottish Office

  1

  Civil Aviation Authority

  2

  Energy

  3

  Customs and Excise

  10

  ODA

  22

  Department of Transport

  4

  183

  Table V Part (a)

  Number of DS Officers on loan to the Home Civil Service at 31 December 1986

  Receiving department

  Number

  DTI

  12

  NIO

  2

  MOD

  3

  Energy

  1

  MPO

  4

  Office of Fair Trading

  2

  Law Officers Department

  1

  Home Office

  2

  Cabinet Office

  13

  ODA

  5

  Treasury

  2

  47

  Table V (Part b)

  Number of home civil service officers on loan to the DS at 3I December 1986

  Parent department

  Number

  DTI

  23

  MAFF

  13

  MOD

  24

  Employment

  6

  Home Office

  31

  Treasury

  5

  DOE

  1

  Northern Ireland Civil

  Service

  5

  NIO

  2

  Scottish Office

  1

  Civil Aviation Authoroty

  2

  Energy

  3

  Customs and Excise

  7

  ODA

  18

  Department of Transport.

  5

  146

  Table VI Diplomatic Service:Interchange with the private sector:

  Secondments into the Diplomatic Service

  Organisation

  Starting during 1990

  Barclays

  British Gas

  Bank of England

  British Telecom

  BNF

  Starting during 1989

  Nil

  Starting during 1988

  Jaguar

  BP

  Peat Marwick

  601

  BNF

  BDH Chemicals Ltd.

  Starting during 1987

  Bank of England

  Shell

  Barclays

  Starting during 1986

  Bank of England

  BP

  De La Rue

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Peat Marwick

  Table VII

  Interchange with the private sector:

  Secondments from the Diplomatic Service

  Organisation

  Starting during 1990

  Price Waterhouse

  Barclays

  Hongkong Bank

  Starting during 1989

  Northern Engineering Industries

  London Chamber of Commerce

  De La Rue

  Hambros

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce

  British Aerospace

  Thorn EMI

  British Gas

  London Chamber of Commerce

  Starting during 1988

  Smiths Industries

  Thorn Lighting

  BBC

  Shorts, Vosper Thornycroft, GKN

  Starting during 1987

  Rank Xerox

  ICI

  Starting during 1986

  British Aerospace

  Barclays

  Arabic Broadcasts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any plans exist to use BBC transmitters in Oman and Cyprus for special broadcasts in Arabic to the people of Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is none. The BBC World Service continues to use the transmitters in Oman and Cyprus for its regular broadcasts in English and Arabic, which can be heard throughout the middle east, including Iraq. Since the crisis began, in August 1990, the BBC has increased the hours of Arabic transmissions from nine to 14 hours a day and those of English broadcasts to 24 hours a day in the region.

  Military Aid
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Monklands, West on 21 January,Official Report, column 49, he will list those nations receiving British military aid since 1987.
  602
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The nations are Belize, Dominica, the Gambia, Grenada, Guyana, Maldives, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Seychelles and Tonga.

  Aid (Eastern Europe)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the assistance given over the past 12 months to(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) Czechoslovakia and (d) Yugoslavia in the (i) food aid, (ii) technical assistance, (iii) trade access, (iv) export credits, (v) investment, (vi) training, (vii) environment and (viii) stabilisation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Commission, as chairman of the Group of 24 donor countries, publishes a regular "scoreboard" of assistance to eastern European countries. The latest edition, issued on 30 January, will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Prisoners of War (Iraq)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received concerning Iraqi treatment of British prisoners of war in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We need no representations to express our disgust at the Iraqi treatment of allied POWs in Iraq. Iraq has been in breach of her obligations under the third Geneva convention. It has paraded and interrogated captured allied airmen before the television cameras, has announced they would be sent to strategic sites, that some had been wounded and that one was now dead. Specifically, Iraq has breached article 13 which says that POWs must at all times be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity, article 17, as regards interrogation, and article 19 as regards evacuation out of danger. Finally, article 23 states that no POW may at any time be sent or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points immune for military operations. Using the POWs as a human shield as Iraq claims to have done would be seen as a serious breach under the terms of article 23.

  We have been in very close touch with the International Committee of the Red Cross. Our mission in Geneva has drawn each successive report to its attention immediately and asked for verification. Specifically on 29 January, we immediately informed it of Iraqi media reports on the wounding and possible death of an allied POW and asked that it seek confirmation as rapidly as possible. So far Iraq has refused to give access to the ICRC and has not notified it of the capture of any POWs. Representations have been made to the ICRC by other allied countries and by the presidency on behalf of the EC. We have also asked some Governments who may have good contacts with the Iraqis to press them to comply with their obligation. In addition, I have summoned the Iraqi ambassador twice, most recently on 29 January, to whom I made clear Iraq's obligations under the convention. The ambassador in Geneva made representations on humanitarian grounds to his Iraqi counterpart who undertook to pass the demarche to Baghdad. We are exploring what other avenues may be open.

  Honorary Consuls
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the duties of honorary consuls; and what remuneration they receive.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under the supervision of a superintending post, honorary consuls can perform most functions of career consuls. Their main role, however, is helping and advising British nationals who find themselves in difficulty in their area.

  They provide a valuable and cost-effective service in areas where there is no career post. Honorary consuls are not paid a salary. However, they may receive an honorarium of up to £1,000 per annum in acknowledgement of their services and certain office expenses.

  Youth Exchange Centre
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many young people since 1985 have taken part in reciprocal exchanges between the United Kingdom and other countries through the youth exchange centre; and what criteria are used for choosing participants.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1985, a total of 91,559 young people have taken part in reciprocal exchanges between the United Kingdom and other countries through the youth exchange centre. Participants are sought from among young people of 15 to 25-years-old who would not otherwise be likely to have the opportunity of any kind of international experience.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ministerial visits have been made from his Department to Iraq since 1979.

  Petroleum products and all commodities transported by road: 1980–1989

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Tonnes (million)

  Petrol and petroleum products

  74

  61

  68

  68

  68

  71

  62

  64

  77

  65

  All commodities

  1,383

  1,286

  1,376

  1,344

  1,390

  1,445

  1,471

  1,542

  1,751

  1,807

  Petrol and petroleum products (percentage of all commodities)

  5·4

  4·7

  4·9

  5·1

  4·9

  4·9

  4·2

  4·2

  4·4

  3·6

  Tonne kilometres (billion)

  Petrol and petroleum products

  4·3

  3·7

  3·7

  4·2

  4·0

  4·3

  3·7

  4·1

  4·9

  4·5

  All commodities

  92·4

  92·9

  93·8

  95·1

  99·9

  102·9

  105·4

  113·3

  129·8

  137·4

  Petrol and petroleum products (percentage of all commodities)

  4·7

  4·0

  3·9

  4·4

  4·0

  4·2

  3·5

  3·6

  3·8

  3·3

  Source: Department of Transport.

  Cycling Facilities
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in descending order the London boroughs by Department of Transport grant-assisted expenditure on cycling facilities in the last three years.

  Mr. Chope
  Bids from the London boroughs for transport supplementary grant for cycling facilities come into the category of minor works. Support is given on a block grant and none for specific schemes. The information requested is therefore not available.
  604
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been seven visits to Iraq by Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers since 1979.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the actual amount of Japanese financial assistance to the allied war effort in the Gulf up to 24 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The original contribution offered by the Japanese was $2 billion for the multinational forces and $2 billion for economic assistance to Jordan, Egypt and Turkey. On 24 January a further contribution of $9 billion for the multinational forces was announced by the Japanese Government.

TRANSPORT

  Inflammable Cargoes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the amount of inflammable cargo transported by road for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is in the tab:le. Available road freight statistics do not indicate whether commodities are inflammable. However, figures are provided for petrol and petroleum products. The table shows the amount of petrol and petroleum products and all commodities transported by road. This is shown in tonnes and also in tonne kilometres, the latter taking account of the distances the commodities are moved.

  Orange Badge Parking
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the orange badge parking scheme for disabled people is recognised by the central London authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Department of Transport officials met officers from the four London authorities currently outside the national scheme, and members of the disabled persons transport advisory committee—DPTAC—in September
  605
  last year to explore the scope for applying some aspects of the orange badge scheme to central London. All four authorities agreed to consider the possibility of granting some concessions to badge holders subject to the implementation of modifications to the scheme now under consideration and to changes in London boroughs parking enforcement powers as envisaged in part II of the current Road Traffic Bill.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that display of the orange badge by anyone other than the legitimate badge holder is made a criminal offence.

  Mr. Chope
  We have already agreed in principle to the creation of this new offence, which would require legislation.

  Trees, Pickburn
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why his Department cut down trees in Doncaster road, Pickburn, South Yorkshire, that were shielding houses from the effects of traffic on the Al(M); who authorised the action, and on what authority it was carried out; and what recompense will be given to the householders.

  Mr. Chope
  The work on this boundary hedge to encourage growth near ground level is to prevent children and animals from straying on to the motorway. The work was carried out in accordance with the Department's code of practice for routine maintenance introduced in 1985. No compensation is available to nearby householders in these circumstances.

  Railways (Security)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss increased security on Britain's railways.

  Mr. Freeman
  I met the chief constable of the British Transport police on 18 January to discuss current security arrangements on the railways and London underground.

  A2 Roadworks
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the length of time roadworks have been undertaken on that stretch of the A2 roadway between Falconwood cemetery, Eltham and Pepper Hill, Swanscombe, since 1 January 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 January 1991]: The periods during which major roadworks have been undertaken on the A2 between Falconwood cemetery, Eltham and Pepper Hill, Swanscombe, since the beginning of January 1983, are as follows:

  Duration (weeks)

  A2 in London Borough of Bexley

  May-November 1986

  20

  March-May 1987

  13

  October 1987-January 1988

  15·5

  August-December 1989

  13

  November 1990—in hand, expected to complete March 1991

  (15)

  606

  Duration (weeks)

  A2 in Kent: County Boundary to Swanscombe

  November 1984-January 1985

  12

  July-December 1985

  19

  August 1988-February 1989

  26

  February-May 1989

  14

  July-September 1990

  10

  October-November 1990

  5

  January 1991—in hand, expected to complete February 1991

  (5)

  The work largely comprises major maintenance, the provision of hard shoulders, lighting and safety fences.

  Speed Limits
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has assessed the possible effect of more stringent enforcement of speed limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from road traffic;

  (2) what would be the effect on emissions of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from road traffic if speed limits on motorways were (a) increased to 80 mph and (b) reduced to 50 mph.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]: The precise effect of a change in speed limits or enforcement would depend on the way in which average driving speeds were affected. The available evidence suggests that, typically, reducing average speed from 70 to 50 mph would reduce a car's CO2 emissions by about 20 per cent. and NOx emissions by about 25 per cent.

  The rate of CO2 emissions would increase proportionately more rapidly from 70 to 80 mph and NOx emissions would also rise.

  Red Routes
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what quantifiable criteria have been used to measure the operation of the red route pilot project; and on what days and at what times monitoring has taken place.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 January 1991]: The "before" surveys were carried out at a variety of times and on a variety of days during 1990. A full programme of monitoring including "after" surveys is being carried out.

  The quantifiable objectives for the pilot scheme are:
  During the working day reduce average journey times—currently 26·5 minutes—and the variation in journey times—presently 15 minutes—thus improving journey reliability along the route.
  Reduce traffic in adjacent rat-runs.
  Improve the reliability of bus services operated so that more run to timetable.
  Reduce casualties along the route and on adjacent roads and thus contribute to meeting the targets for the Boroughs concerned.
  Improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists and reduce conflicts between them and vehicles.

  The aim is to achieve the objectives without encouraging an increase in the number of cars being used for commuting into central London and any adverse impact on shops along the route.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision he has made in the red route pilot project for money to be collected and deposited with banks by security vans.
  607
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 January 1991]: Although there is no general exemption for security vehicles, arrangements can be made between the police and the operators individually according to the nature and location of deliveries.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the effects of the red route pilot project on traders' businesses along the line of the route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 January 1991]: Since the pilot route opened representations have been received from several businesses. In some cases it has been possible to provide some loading or waiting areas, but in other cases the location of the businesses is such that loading or waiting is not possible without creating congestion or affecting safety. It is too soon to reach conclusions about long-term effects.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) organisations and businesses and (b) members of the public responded to the consultation on the red route pilot project.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 January 1991]: A total of 221 responses were made by businesses and 240 by members of the public or organisations. As a result of the consultation, several important changes to the scheme were made, mainly to suit the needs of local businesses.

  Deaths, Edge Hill
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the deaths of three railway workers at Edge Hill railway sidings, Liverpool, on Friday 18 January.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The three men had been called out at 03.40 to repair faulty points at Edge Hill. They had telephoned the signalman, who had reported the fault, to inform him that they were on the way, but he heard no more from them. Later, the fault cleared and the signalman set a route over the points for an empty train bound for Liverpool Lime Street station.

  From the evidence available, it seems most likely that the men had started work on site and were struck by the empty train. The crew of a track maintenance machine that passed over the same line shortly afterwards were the first to notice that an accident had occurred. They alerted the signalman who called the emergency services.

  An inspector from the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate visited the site later in the day to carry out an investigation. British Rail's internal inquiry began on Monday 21 January. The inspectorate will, on receipt of British Rail's report, decide whether any further action is necessary.

WALES

  Whitchurch Hospital
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons have been detained at Whitchurch hospital because of lack of medium secure accommodation for each of the last five years; what has 608
  been the cost involved; and whether South Glamorgan health authority has been compensated for that expenditure.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  District health authorities are responsible for meeting the health care needs of their mentally ill patients, including those who need to be cared for in secure conditions. The records maintained by South Glamorgan health authority do not allow for precise calculations of the number of patients treated in ward west 3 who might have warranted medium secure acommodation over the past five years, but the authority estimates that 15 or 20 might have fallen into this category. In recognition of the special role undertaken by Whitchurch hospital for this group of patients, additional funding has been made available since 1977 for nursing support. This currently amounts to £180,000 a year. The Welsh Office also helps to fund a hospital social worker at the hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons have been accommodated in the locked ward at Whitchurch hospital for each of the last five years; what has been the extra cost involved; and whether South Glamorgan health authority has been compensated for that expenditure.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  South Glamorgan health authority has provided the following breakdown of patients accommodated at ward west 3.

  Number

  1986

  192

  1987

  170

  1988

  166

  1989

  192

  1990

  208

  No information on extra costs is available. 1 refer my hon. Friend to my answer earlier today as to additional funding made available by the Welsh Office for Whitchurch hospital's special role.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons detained at Whitchurch hospital have escaped in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Two patients are reported by South Glamorgan health authority to have escaped from ward west 3 over the past five years, in 1987 and 1989. In addition, two patients absconded whilst on authorised parole, both during 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what review he has made of security arrangements at Whitchurch hospital following the escape of Andrew Peter Jones and others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for South Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the provision of medium secure accommodation for persons who are now directed to Whitchurch hospital.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Following my hon. Friend's announcement on 21 February 1990, the all-Wales advisory group on forensic psychiatry is due to report during the spring. In the meantime, work has commenced
  609
  on an interim secure unit at Glanrhyd hospital in Mid Glamorgan which is likely to take its first patients during 1991.

  Cholesterol Tests
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of tests for high cholesterol blood counts carried out, and the corresponding number of such tests requested, for each health authority, for the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not available centrally.

  Departmental Personnel
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by his Department in Cardiff and London; and what were the corresponding figures for the last 10 years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The numbers of staff employed by the Welsh Office in Cardiff and London over the last 10 years can be fully disaggregated only at disproportionate cost. Setting aside those employed in the main offices outside these locations gives the following figures for 1 October of each year.

  1 October

  Number

  1990

  1,931

  1989

  1,809

  1988

  1,739

  Speech therapists in post as at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Clwyd

  12·4

  12·1

  12·7

  12·7

  14·4

  17·6

  17·4

  23·3

  24·7

  24·3

  29·4

  East Dyfed

  7·3

  7·4

  5·4

  6·4

  8·4

  8·4

  13·3

  13·3

  14·0

  15·3

  15·3

  Pembrokeshire

  2·0

  2·5

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  6·0

  6·0

  5·0

  5·0

  Gwent

  7·1

  10·0

  11·9

  12·7

  12··8

  15·9

  16·9

  14·9

  12·1

  15·4

  16·1

  Gwynedd

  6·8

  7·5

  8·6

  8·6

  8·0

  9·4

  11·0

  10·0

  11·9

  11·7

  11·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  11·0

  12· 5

  12·1

  13·6

  17·6

  14·6

  12·6

  17·0

  19· 5

  18·0

  18·4

  Powys

  4·7

  5·6

  5·7

  6·7

  5·8

  5·8

  4·8

  3·8

  7·5

  8·9

  8·4

  South Glamorgan

  16·4

  17·4

  15·7

  15·7

  18·6

  28·7

  27·0

  27·6

  27·7

  30·8

  32·6

  West Glamorgan

  8·6

  8·5

  12·6

  13·1

  13·3

  13·2

  13·2

  14·2

  19·7

  20·9

  17·9

  Expenditure on speech therapy in real terms

  £ thousands

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Clwyd

  164

  162

  168

  191

  187

  199

  233

  252

  297

  353

  402

  East Dyfed

  108

  107

  117

  94

  116

  139

  146

  172

  190

  176

  191

  Pembrokeshire

  35

  38

  42

  45

  65

  54

  61

  57

  Gwent

  129

  123

  146

  163

  185

  193

  209

  195

  187

  170

  194

  Gwynedd

  34

  81

  111

  126

  131

  139

  145

  160

  162

  211

  193

  Mid Glamorgan

  133

  157

  166

  235

  186

  214

  174

  192

  232

  258

  248

  Powys

  49

  62

  66

  78

  87

  88

  87

  75

  92

  135

  146

  South Glamorgan

  192

  220

  228

  221

  273

  281

  392

  436

  403

  453

  492

  West Glamorgan

  105

  123

  149

  169

  164

  193

  178

  193

  221

  255

  261

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of cash in real terms has been given in each year, from 1980 onwards, to speech therapy in the NHS and the local education authorities.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Responsibility for the financing and provision of speech therapy services was transferred to the NHS in 1974 at the time of the NHS reorganisation. The level of funding provided for these services is a matter
  610

  October

  Number

  1987

  1,817

  1986

  1,842

  1985

  1,835

  1984

  1,742

  1983

  1,690

  1982

  1,722

  1981

  1,781

  1980

  1,844

  These include small numbers of staff in the Colwyn Bay office and some education division and CADW staff.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of speech therapists employed in each county in Wales for each of the years since 1980; and what was the revenue expenditure on speech therapy services in Wales in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on speech therapists employed and revenue expenditure on speech therapy by health authorities in Wales is given in the following tables. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my pleasure at the substantial improvements made since this Government came into office in 1979.

  No information is held centrally on the numbers, if any, of speech therapists employed or revenue expenditure on speech therapy by county councils.

  for individual health authorities to determine in the light of their perception of local needs and of available resources. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer earlier today as to information on outturn expenditure on speech therapy in Wales in real terms since 1980.

  Environmental Grants
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) of 22 January,Official Report, column 126, on environmental grants, if he will give the total sum available in the special grants (environmental) programme budget for 1991–92; and whether there is a last date for applications.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The total sum available under the special grants (environmental) programme for 1991–92 is £144,000. Applications were asked for by 15 November 1990, but subsequent applications will be given full consideration subject to funding being available.

  Stroke Victims
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the provision for stroke victims of(a) speech therapy, and (b) occupational therapy.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The provision of speech and occupational therapy for persons having suffered a stroke is a matter for district health authorities to decide in the light of clinical assessment on individual need and available resources.

  Welsh Office circular 24/90, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, provides advice and guidance to health and other authorities on the development and provision of services for people with physical and/or sensory disabilities. Annex A of the circular draws attention to the particular needs of stroke patients.

  Welsh National Opera
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement about the financial position of the Welsh National Opera.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am glad that the Arts Council of Great Britain has now agreed to increase its annual grant to the Welsh National Opera by £300,000 with effect from 1991–92 and that this will also be written into the company's baseline for the succeeding two financial years. This additional grant will enable the WNO to fulfil its planned touring commitment in England and undertake a full programme of activity in future years without incurring trading deficits.

  I have also been concerned about the drain on the company's resources occasioned by the high level of interest payments on its accumulated deficit. I have, therefore, exceptionally agreed to transfer £842,000 from within my existing provision to the Office of Arts and Libraries so that the Arts Council can be put in a position to eliminate the projected deficit before the end of this financial year.

  I have taken this action in recognition of the Welsh National Opera's unique contribution to Wales. Not only has the company received international acclaim for the quality of its work, but it has presented a positive image of Wales abroad and has supported efforts to promote Wales's economic interests.

  The management of the Welsh National Opera company is being given an unparalleled opportunity to build on a secure financial base. It is essential that it should
  612
  take all appropriate steps to ensure that the company is managed effectively, efficiently and economically. There can be no excuse for further deficits.

  I welcome the fact that further arrangements are being made for the Arts Council of Great Britain and the Welsh Arts Council to monitor the company's management and financial performance to ensure that effective budgetary controls are in place. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts also intends to keep a close watch on the situation.

HEALTH

  NHS Statistics
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the number of nurses employed in the national health service in each year since 1979 and (b) the average number of NHS occupied hospital beds in each year since 1979 for which figures are available; and if lie will show, in both cases, the percentage change in each year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The available information is given in the table.

  NHS nursing and midwifery staff and average number of available and occupied beds England 1979–1989

  Year

  Nursing and Midwifery staff at 30 September1 Whole-time equivalents2

  Percentage change on previous year

  1979

  3 358,400

  —

  1980

  3370,100

  3·3

  1981

  391,800

  5·9

  1982

  397,100

  1·4

  1983

  397,100

  0·0

  1984

  397,500

  0·1

  1985

  401,200

  0·9

  1986

  402,700

  0·4

  1987

  404,000

  0·3

  1988

  403,900

  -0·0

  1989

  405,300

  0·3

  Average number of occupied beds (thousands)

  1979

  293

  —

  1980

  289

  -1·4

  1981

  285

  -1·4

  1982

  279

  -2·1

  1983

  276

  -1·1

  1984

  269

  -2·5

  1985

  263

  —2·2

  1986

  254

  —3·4

  1987-1988

  4—

  —

  1988-1989

  4—

  —

  1989–1990

  4—

  —

  Sources:

  Manpower:

  Department of Health (SM 13) annual census of NHS non-medical manpower

  Beds:

  Department of Health (SM 12) returns

  SH3. return 1979–1986

  KHO3. return 1987–88—1898–90

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest hundred (100). Percentages calculated on unrounded figures.

  2 Includes agency staff and all qualified nurse and midwives, learners and unqualified nursing staff.

  3 The WTE figures prior to 1981 have not been adjusted to reflect the reduction in the standard weekly hours for nurses, from 40 to 37·5 hours per week, which occurred during 1980–81.

  4 Information not available centrally beyond 1986.

  Cancer Deaths
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each regional health authority the number of deaths caused by(a) lung cancer, (b) throat cancer and (c) breast cancer for each of the last 10 years; and if he will show in his answer for (a) and (b) above, by sex.

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

  Salmonella
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the occasions since 1 January 1990 on which the public health laboratory service has identified salmonella in consignments of imported eggs, giving the date of discovery and the country of origin of the consignment; and if he will make a statement on the public health implications.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Isolates of Salmonella Enteritidis from imported eggs 1990

  Date of isolation 1990

  Country of origin

  9 April

  Holland

  18 April

  Holland

  1 June

  Holland

  2 June

  Holland

  11 June

  Holland

  16 July

  Holland

  16 July

  Holland

  16 July

  Holland

  25 July

  Ireland

  7 August

  Holland

  8 August

  Holland

  20 August

  Germany

  31 August

  Belgium

  10 September

  Holland

  12 September

  Holland

  20 September

  Holland

  20 September

  Holland

  24 September

  Holland

  1 October

  Holland

  30 October

  Holland

  17 December

  France

  Isolates of Salmonella Typhimurium from imported eggs 1990

  Date of isolation 1990

  Country of origin

  15 June

  Holland

  1 August

  France

  31 August

  Holland

  21 September

  Holland

  19 October

  Holland

  28 October

  Holland

  8 November

  Belgium

  Gulf Casualties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by regional health authority and by district health authority, the number of pay beds requisitioned for receiving Gulf casualties; how many national health service beds have been requisitioned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities have not yet been asked to set aside beds for Gulf casualties.

  Pay beds are authorised subject only to the statutory requirement that there be no significant disadvantage to
  614
  NHS patients. Health service managers will ensure that these beds are made available should they be required for Gulf casualties or other priority cases.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of beds available within the Doncaster health authority area in 1980, 1985 and 1990; what is the current actual position; and what are the comparable figures for England as a whole.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of average daily available beds

  1980

  1985

  1989–90

  England

  355,979

  325,487

  270,334

  Doncaster

  1,772

  1,879

  1,657

  Number of inpatients treated

  Finished hospital stays (Discharges and Deaths)

  Finished Consultant Episodes

  1980

  1955

  1989–901

  England

  5,670,001

  6,353,812

  7,476,625

  Doncaster

  29,828

  39,936

  47,926

  1 Figures for 1989–90 refer to finished consultant episodes and should not be directly compared with earlier figures (discharges and deaths).

  In 1988–89 when data were collected on both bases, finished consultant episodes in Trent exceeded discharges and deaths by 8 per cent.

  Red-eared Terrapins
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is any medical evidence of human health risks from contaminated red-eared terrapins.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In every outbreak of salmonellosis investigated by the public health laboratory services communicable disease surveillance centre (CDSC) in England and Wales, questions are asked about contact with pets and other animals. CDSC has yet to document an outbreak associated with terrapins.

  A number of studies into terrapin associated salmonellosis have been carried out in the United States of America. These studies are mostly 10 or more years old but a study in 1985 showed that 10 out of 60 infant cases in Puerto Rico has a history of exposure to pet turtles. (In this context turtle is the American term for terrapin.) However, the information from this study cannot be extrapolated to all cases in the United States of America, still less to cases in England and Wales.

  The salmonella serotypes most commonly associated with terrapins in the United States of America are rare in this country. In 1989 and 1990 there were no reports at all of infection with S Urbana, the serotype most strongly associated with terrapins in American studies. There is no prima facie evidence that terrapins constitute a significant public health problem in England and Wales.

  Waltham Forest Health Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details, including the date it was submitted, of the preparatory application by Waltham Forest health service to become a self-governing trust from April 1992.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waltham Forest health authority originally submitted an expression of interest in becoming an NHS trust in August 1990. A subsequent expression in which Claybury hospital was excluded from the configuration of the proposed trust was submitted on 12 December 1990.

  The revised expression of interest was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 14 January this year at column 418.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to finish consultations with local authority associations on sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultations and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Officials concluded consultations with local authority associations on the costs of implementing these sections at the end of last year. The outcome of these consultations is now under consideration and a statement will be made in due course.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now expects to publish the findings of the Royal College of General Practitioners' study into post-abortion trauma, commissioned in 1976; what work his Department is undertaking into the physical and psychological effects of abortion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The researchers have recently produced papers for publication and others will follow shortly. All the findings of this study will be considered carefully as will the need for further work in this field.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to respond to the Social Services Select Committee's 10th report of Session 1989–90 on the conscience provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are carefully considering the Committee's report and will be publishing our response shortly.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions over the past 10 years and in respect of which properties his Department has specifically agreed that(a) capital proceeds and (b) revenue arising from the disposal of hospitals for the mentally ill need not be used for the benefit of the mentally ill.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that(a) the capital
  616
  proceeds and (b) the revenue arising from the disposal of hospitals for the mentally ill has been used by health authorities for the benefit of the mentally ill, as provided in his Department's handbook "Property Transactions in the NHS"; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that health authorities are fully aware of the contents of his Department's handbook "Property Transactions in the NHS"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The handbook "Property Transactions in the NHS" was issued widely throughout the NHS in August 1989. It was issued under cover of a health notice HN(89)13 (a copy of which is available in the Library) which, in its annex, listed those occasions when health authorities were required to refer property transactions to the Department. The Department does not routinely monitor compliance with the requirements of "Property Transactions in the NHS", but we have no reason to think the health authorities are not co-operating.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking as a result of the responses he has received to the consultation paper on the provision of hearing aid services under the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Twelve direct referral pilot projects have been established in hospitals throughout England. These projects are being independently evaluated by a team of researchers from the university of Manchester. We do not expect to have the results of the evaluation before spring 1992.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to local authorities about publicising the availability of alternatives to the institutional care of elderly or disabled people.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  "Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond: Policy Guidance" was published in November 1990 and issued to local and health authorities. A copy is in the Library. It includes guidance on publishing accessible information on the types of community care services available. Local authorities are expected to include in their published care plans the arrangements made in this respect.

  The Policy Studies Institute is carrying out on behalf of the Department a study of user information needs in order to provide further guidance to authorities.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds have been closed in the Mersey region due to the transfer of elderly patients to private or charitable nursing homes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not hold this information centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Donald Wilson, the chairman of Mersey regional health authority, for details.

  Wakefield Health Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has received from Yorkshire regional health authority regarding the reasons for the current financial position of Wakefield health authority.
  617
  Mr. Dorrell
  The national health service management executive receives regular reports from regional health authorities which monitor the financial position of their districts. In addition, there is regular contact between the national health service management executive and the regional health authorities at all levels.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken by Yorkshire regional health authority to monitor the management of Wakefield health authority over the past five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yorkshire regional health authority has well-established arrangements for monitoring its districts. I suggest the hon. Member contacts Sir Bryan Askew, chairman of the regional health authority, for details.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up a full and independent inquiry into the management of Wakefield health authority over the past five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. Management of Wakefield district health authority is the responsibility of Yorkshire regional health authority.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take urgent steps to ensure that the current financial position of Wakefield health authority does not result in further reductions in health care provision within local hospitals or community services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is the responsibility of regional health authorities to allocate finances to the district in the light of local circumstances and priorities.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department is giving to health authorities on the proportion of their budget they should allocate to meeting the costs of extra-contractual referrals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  District health authorities will need to keep a reserve to cover the costs of expected levels of extra-contractual referrals. These will vary according to local needs and circumstances.

  Vinegar
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, over the last 12 months, his officials have met representatives of the vinegar industry to discuss the health implications of the over-consumption of vinegar; and if he will make a statement.

  Number of accidents on the following sections of road

  M8 St. James Intersection to end of the motorway at West Ferry

  A8 (Trunk) West Ferry to Parklea (Port Glasgow Burgh Boundary)

  A8 (Principal) Parklea to Central Greenock

  1979

  15

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  13

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  12

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  9

  n/a

  n/a

  1983

  9

  n/a

  n/a

  1984

  6

  n/a

  n/a

  1985

  10

  6

  49

  1986

  8

  3

  46

  1987

  4

  7

  35

  1988

  11

  10

  37

  618
  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Operating Theatre Sessions
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) for each of the past three years and (b) for each health district (i) the number of scheduled sessions held in operating theatres, (ii) the number of scheduled sessions that were cancelled, (iii) the number of cases operated on in scheduled sessions and (iv) the total number of cases operated on.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested has been collected since the financial year 1987–88 and copies of the summary booklet "NHS Operating Theatres Availability and Use" for 1987–88 and 1988–89 have been placed in the Library. The 1989–90 data are due to be published shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

SCOTLAND

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of households in Scotland have a weekly income of less than £100.

  Mr. Lang
  It is estimated that in 1989 approximately 25 per cent. of households in Scotland had gross income below £100 per week; just over two thirds of these were one-person households. This is the latest year for which information is available from the family expenditure survey.

  M8 (Accidents)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many accidents have occurred on the M8 motorway from the St. James intersection at Glasgow airport to Greenock, in each year since the section was opened.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table provides the number of accidents from the M8 St. James intersection, Glasgow airport to Greenock on the M8, A8 (trunk) and A8 (principal) roads to Greenock, over the last five years 1985 to 1989 and to June 1990. Statistics for the motorway section are available only back to 1979. Statistics for the other sections of the route cannot be made available prior to 1985 except at disproportionate cost. Information prior to 1979 is not available.
  619

  M8 St. James Intersection to end of the motorway at West Ferry

  A8 (Trunk) West Ferry to Parklea (Port Glasgow Burgh Boundary)

  A8 (Principal) Parklea to Central Greenock

  1989

  9

  7

  34

  19901

  6

  4

  12

  1 To June.

  n/a not available.

  Sheep and Cattle
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of support payments paid out in the Highlands and Islands development board area in the most recent year for which there are figures, in respect of(a) sheep and (b) cattle.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Expenditure on relevant agricultural schemes within the Highlands and Islands development board area is as follows.

  Sheep £'000

  Cattle £'000

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances1

  9,471

  8,340

  Sheep annual premium1

  9,484

  n/a

  Suckler cow premium1

  n/a

  5,230

  Beef special premium2

  n/a

  350

  18,955

  13,920

  1 1989 scheme expenditure.

  2 Financial year 1989–90.

  n/a Not available.

  The Highlands and Islands development board itself provides some assistance to the livestock sector: in 1989–90 this amounted to £2,212,000.

  The sheep and cattle sectors also benefit from intervention market support and the sheep variable premium. It is not possible to disaggregate this support to specific areas.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total urban programme budget for Scotland in the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The total urban programme budget for 1989–90 was £57 million, and for 1990–91 was £68·989 million. These figures include both the central Government and local authority contributions.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total urban programme budgets available in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in(a) Strathclyde, (b) Lothian, (c) Central, (d) Fife, (e) Grampian and (f) Tayside, together with (i) the actual expenditure for 1989–90, (ii) the actual expenditure so far for 1990–91, (iii) the total project expenditure for 1990–91 in each case.

  Training agency area office

  Actual expenditure until December 1990 £ million

  Total budget for 1990–91 £ million

  Anticipated spend for 1990–91 £ million

  Glasgow City

  22·2

  34·1

  32·0

  Lanarkshire

  14·8

  22·2

  21·7

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  13·9

  22·0

  20·7

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  15·1

  23·1

  20·1

  Lothian and Borders

  21·4

  29·8

  28·8

  Central and Fife

  16·2

  25·2

  23·9

  620
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The resources of the urban programme are not allocated in the form of regional budgets. However, the table gives details for the urban programme of approved project expenditure aggregated for each of the six regions in question and including approved expenditure by both regional and district councils for 1989–90 and 1990–91. The table also provides corresponding information on actual expenditure which is available only for 1989–90. No information is provided for 1991–92 as decisions have still to be taken about the distribution of a substantial portion of the resources which will be available in that year.

  Urban programme

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Regional council area

  Approved project expenditure £'000

  Actual expenditure £'000

  Approved project expenditure £'000

  Central

  2,671

  2,153

  3,444

  Fife

  1,465

  1,203

  1,720

  Grampian

  2,220

  2,120

  1,787

  Lothian

  5,771

  5,225

  7,158

  Strathclyde

  43,072

  37,771

  48,212

  Tayside

  2,859

  2,240

  4,172

  Training Agency
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the actual expenditure of Training Agency budgets in the financial year to date, in each Training Agency area in Scotland;

  (2) if he will list the total budgets available to the Training Agency in Scotland in the financial year 1990–91 in each Training Agency area;

  (3) if he will publish a table showing the total projected expenditure of Training Agency budgets in the year to date, in each Training Agency area in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the table, which shows budgets set, actual expenditure to end December 1990, and the latest estimated outturn of expenditure for each Training Agency area office in Scotland. The figures exclude some expenditure incurred centrally by the Training Agency.
  621

  Training agency area office

  Actual expenditure until December 1990 £ million

  Total budget for 1990–91 £ million

  Anticipated spend for 1990–91 £ million

  Grampian and Tayside

  16·3

  24·6

  23·0

  Highlands and Islands

  7·1

  9·9

  102

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the total budgets agreed at the present time in respect of each proposed local enterprise company within the former Scottish Development Agency area;

  (2) if he will list the total budgets proposed by each local enterprise company which is being established in Scotland under Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  These are operational matters for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and I have asked the chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total budgets agreed at the present time in respect of the eight proposed local enterprise companies under Highland Enterprise.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  These are operational matters for Highlands and Islands Enterprise and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total urban programme budgets available in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in the following district authority areas(a) Clydebank, (b) Clydesdale, (c) Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, (d) Cumnock and Doon Valley, (e) Cunninghame, (f) Dumbarton, (g) East Kilbride, (h) City of Glasgow, (i) Hamilton, (j) Inverclyde, (k) Kilmarnock and Loudoun, (l) Kyle and Carrick, (m) Monklands, (n) Motherwell, (o) Renfrew and (p) Strathkelvin, together with (i) the actual expenditure for 1989–90, (ii) the actual expenditure so far for 1990–91 and (iii) the total projected expenditure for 1990–91, in each case.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The resources of the urban programme are not allocated as budgets for district authority areas. However, the table gives details for the urban programme-approved project expenditure for 1989–90 and 1990–91 for the district councils for the areas in question. These figures do not include approved expenditure by relevant regional councils as this cannot be accurately apportioned to district authority areas without disproportionate difficulty. The table also provides corresponding information on actual expenditure which is available only for 1989–90. No information is provided for 1991–92 as decisions have still to be taken about the distribution of a substantial portion of the resources which will be available in that year.

  Urban programme

  1989–90

  1990–91

  District Council Area

  Approved project expenditure £'000

  Actual expenditure £'000

  Approved project expenditure £'000

  City of Glasgow

  8,579

  8,746

  6,681

  Clydebank

  183

  195

  207

  Clydesdale1

  —

  —

  —

  622

  1989–90

  1990–91

  District Council Area

  Approved project expenditure £'000

  Actual expenditure £'000

  Approved project expenditure £'000

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth1

  —

  —

  —

  Cumnock and Doon Valley1

  —

  —

  —

  Cunninghame

  531

  528

  921

  Dumbarton

  211

  174

  354

  East Kilbride1

  —

  —

  —

  Hamilton

  546

  504

  664

  Inverclyde

  172

  230

  191

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  160

  115

  35

  Kyle and Carrick

  66

  77

  79

  Monklands

  1,553

  712

  1,917

  Motherwell

  924

  657

  884

  Renfrew

  870

  581

  1,786

  Strathkelvin

  158

  147

  154

  1 Contains no area eligible for assistance under the Urban Programme.

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish total proposed budget figures for Highlands and Islands Enterprise for 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The budget for Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be published in the supply estimates.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the actual expenditure of Scottish Development Agency budgets in the financial year to date in each Scottish Development Agency region;

  (2) if he will list the total budgets available to the Scottish Development Agency in the financial year 1990–91 in each Scottish Development Agency region of operation;

  (3) if he will publish a table showing the total projected expenditure of Scottish Development Agency budgets in the financial year to date in Scotland, in each Scottish Development Agency region.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  These are operational matters for the Scottish Development Agency and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Edinburgh Ring Road
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the closure of lanes on the Edinburgh ring route; and whether the cost of repairs will be borne by central Government.

  Mr. Lang
  The Edinburgh city bypass is a local road. Responsibility for the maintenance of the bypass is consequently a matter for Lothian regional council as the local roads authority.

  Natural Heritage
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give further details of the advice sought by management consultants due to report on the location, staffing and organisation options for Scottish Natural Heritage; who the management consultants are; the expected date of the report's publication; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The management consultants, Ernst and Young, consulted a wide range of interests including relevant public bodies, voluntary organisations and the management and trade union sides of the predecessor bodies. The Scottish Office Environment Department has now received the report. The management and trade union sides of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland are being asked for their views.

  Baby Units
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much funding was provided for special care baby units in Scotland for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the location of each special care baby unit in Scotland; how many places are available in each unit; and how many patients are redirected from Glasgow special care baby units when places are full.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards meet the capital and revenue costs of special care baby units from within their normal allocations. The table lists the average number of available staffed special care baby unit beds in Scotland at 31 March 1990. Information on the number of redirected patients is not held centrally.

  Average available staffed beds

  Scotland

  520

  Argyll and Clyde

  53

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital, Alexandria

  18

  Ranking Memorial Hospital, Greenock

  14

  Paisley Maternity Hospital

  21

  Ayrshire and Arran

  28

  Ayrshire Central Hospital, Irvine

  28

  Borders

  10

  Borders General Hospital, Melrose

  10

  Dumfries and Galloway

  14

  Cresswell Maternity Hospital, Dumfries

  14

  Fife

  37

  Forth Park Maternity Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  25

  Dunfermline Maternity Hospital

  12

  Forth Valley

  24

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  12

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  12

  Grampian

  40

  Aberdeen Maternity Hospital

  40

  Greater Glasgow

  126

  Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital

  28

  Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow

  19

  Rutherglen Maternity Hospital

  25

  Southern General Hospital, Glasgow

  24

  624

  Average available staffed beds

  The Queen Mother's Hospital, Glasgow

  30

  Highland

  20

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  20

  Lanarkshire

  52

  Bellshill Maternity Hospital

  38

  William Smellie Maternity Hospital, Lanark

  14

  Lothian

  72

  Eastern General Hospital, Edinburgh

  14

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  15

  Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion, Edinburgh

  29

  Bangour General Hospital, by Broxburn

  8

  St. John's Hospital at Howden, Livingston

  6

  Tayside

  44

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  30

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  14

  Schools (Advertising)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will specify in respect of the current advertising programme on behalf of the SED and independent schools information service(a) how many adverts are appearing and are scheduled to appear and in which newspapers, (b) whether any television advertising is envisaged, (c) the cost of the campaign and (d) if he will list the statutory provisions which relate to the incurring of expenditure on, or promotion of, such a nongovernmental body.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no advertising programme on behalf of the Scottish Office Education Department and the Independent Schools Information Service.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the relevant bodies which were consulted before the appointment of 11 members to the board of the newly formed Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland announced on 13 December 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No formal consultation was undertaken before the appointment of 11 members to the board of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. A number of individuals and bodies submitted nominations. These were considered along with other candidates.

  Fish Farming Advisory Committee
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions the fish farming advisory committee has met; how many cases have been referred to it; and how many opinions on cases it has delivered.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand from the Crown Estate Commissioners that the inaugural meeting of the advisory committee was held in March 1990. One case has been referred to the committee and it determined its opinion at the second meeting in August 1990.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new and additional finance is being made available to assist(a) local authorities and (b) voluntary agencies to tackle the problem of homelessness in (i) Strathclyde and (ii) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Particular attention is given to homelessness needs in distributing provisional housing capital allocations among local authorities. In 1991–92, in addition to the main allocation, totalling over £414 million on the housing revenue account—HRA—and over £105 million on the non-HRA, my right hon. Friend has made available an extra allocation of £2 million specifically to tackle homelessness in the four Scottish cities, including Glasgow. I shall be announcing the distribution of that total among the cities shortly. In addition to the grants already paid to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness under section 39 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, we are currently considering making funds available to voluntary agencies under section 10(1) of the 1968 Act to enable them to provide support to young people at risk of becoming roofless and to make it easier for them to move into settled accommodation in their own area.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new initiatives he is taking to tackle the problem of homelessness in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Problems associated with homelessness play a large part in determining the Government's housing policies, in particular the distribution of capital allocations to local authorities. The statutory responsibility for advising and housing homeless applicants rests with local authorities. Other housing agencies, including Scottish Homes, also give high priority to homelessness.

  Besides developing existing policies, the Government have taken a number of specific initiatives against homelessness which will benefit Strathclyde and the rest of Scotland. These include:
  From April 1991 any deficit incurred by a local authority in operating a homelessness hostel will be met by housing support grant, whether or not the authority would otherwise receive grant.
  An additional capital allocation of £2 million is being made for specific projects to tackle homelessness and rooflessness in the four Scottish cities.
  We expect to issue soon a new version of the code of guidance for local authorities on the homelessness legislation, on which consultations took place late last year.
  Costs which local authorities incur in providing a homelessness service using resources other than council-owned housing will in future be charged to the general fund, rather than to the housing revenue account.
  Glasgow university's centre for housing research have been awarded a contract for a study of the role of social work in the management and prevention of homelessness.

  We are continuing to encourage local authorities to establish cash incentive schemes as an effective means of releasing council housing for the homeless. I am pleased that several local authorities are now pursuing this option.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each of the last 10 years,(a) the number
  626
  of local authority dwellings built, (b) the number sold, (c) the number built by housing associations, (d) the number of homeless persons and (e) his estimate of the number sleeping on the streets.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of dwellings completed by local authorities and housing associations from 1979 onwards are published quarterly in table 5 of the Scottish Office statistical bulletins on housing trends in Scotland. Copies of these bulletins are sent to all Members representing Scottish constituencies and are available in the House Library. The numbers of dwellings sold by local authorities to sitting tenants are given in table 7 of these publications.

  The information held centrally does not enable an estimate of the number of homeless persons and the number sleeping on the streets to be made. Information based on the number of applications received by local authorities under the homelessness legislation was given in a reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on 1 November 1990, at columns 714–15.

  Sandeels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the criteria which will be used to determine whether the proposed closure of the Shetland sandeel fishery will enable sandeel stocks to reach adequate and sustainable levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposal to keep the Shetland sandeel fishery closed in 1991 is based on the latest scientific advice that the level of spawning stock has continued to decline and that the fishery should be closed until the stock recovers. While the decline in stocks has not been caused by fishing, and is related to natural factors affecting recruitment of young fish to the stock, closure of the fishery would represent the maximum protection available for the stock in its current poor condition. The recovery of the stocks will depend principally on future recruitment levels which cannot be predicted.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will provide capital grants to existing sandeel fishermen to assist them in adapting to the fishing of alternative stocks during the period of closure of the Shetland sandeel fishery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. Those fishing vessels normally involved in the Shetland sandeel fishery already fish for other species.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will maintain the proposed closure of the Shetland sandeel fishery for a period which allows the population of Arctic terns to reach a sustainable level; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  While a final decision on the management arrangements for the Shetland sandeel fishery in 1991 is subject to consultation with interested parties, a consultation paper issued in December 1990 proposes that the fishery be closed until sandeel spawning stock levels recover. The future availability of juvenile sandeels to Arctic terns is primarily dependent on recruitment to the stock, which is affected by natural factors outwith our control and not by fishing effort.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which private schools receive support from public funds for the assisted places scheme; and how much each received in the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 January 1991]: The Government do not give direct financial assistance to independent schools. The assisted places scheme provides financial help for parents to send their children to independent schools. It concentrates assistance on low-income families. In the 1989–90 school sesssion 48 per cent. of those benefiting came from families whose total income was less than £8,500.

  Operations (Postponements)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many operations due to take place within hospitals under the Lothian health board have been postponed in each month from October 1990 to the most recent available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 29 January 1991]: The number of operations postponed by hospitals in Lothian during the period October-December 1990 was as follows:

  Number

  October

  16

  November

  133

  December

  263

  TOTAL

  512

  The corresponding total for the same period in the previous year was 590.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are available for the payment of attendance allowance to persons who normally reside in local authority homes but who spend periods away from such homes, staying with relatives or friends, for and during holidays and other periods.

  Mr. Scott
  If the usual qualifying conditons are met, attendance allowance is payable for daily periods (which must include an overnight absence) spent away from a local authority home. The claimant or his representative should inform the Department of any such periods and the allowance is paid in arrears by payable order.

  Poor People
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of Government policies on the economic well-being of the poorest decile of the income distribution.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the living standards of people living in the lower half of the income distribution is presented in the series of tables "Households Below Average Income 1981–87", copies of which are available in 628
  the Library. The tables show that the incomes of those in the lower income groups—including the lowest decile—rose in real terms during that period.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether he will announce the outcome of his Department's review of the procedure for allocating national insurance numbers;

  (2) whether his Department intends to consult the Commission for Racial Equality and organisations working with refugees in its review of the procedure for allocating national insurance numbers.

  Mr. Jack
  Following an internal review of procedures, it was decided that when foreign nationals are restricted from seeking work in this country we would no longer inform the Home Office when a national insurance number is issued for benefit purposes only. The Department now accepts a wider range of documents as evidence of identity.

  The review took careful account of views expressed by organisations working with refugees.

  Poverty
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give his Department's latest official figures for the number of people living in poverty in Scotland.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 30 January 1991.

  Backdated Claims
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the benefits for which claimants may backdate claims for proven good cause within a prescribed time.

  Mr. Scott
  The benefits for which claims may be backdated for proven good cause are as follows:

  Unemployment Benefit

  Sickness Benefit

  Invalidity Benefit

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Disablement Benefit (including increases of Disablement Benefit)

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  Income Support

  Housing Benefit

  Community Charge Benefit

  Family Credit

  Social Fund Payments in respect of maternity expenses, funeral expenses and expenses for heating incurred in a period of cold weather.

  Concessionary Fuel
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the lump sum payment offered by British Coal to retired concessionaires entitled to cash in lieu of concessionary fuel will be classified as capital; and if it will affect future payments of means-tested benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Lump sum payments are normally treated as capital in the income-related benefits, and do not affect entitlement to benefit unless they take a person's total capital to over £3,000. However, where the
  629
  adjudicating authority decides that a person has deprived himself of regular payments of cash in lieu of concessionary coal in exchange for a lump sum payment for the purpose of obtaining benefit, or an increase in benefit, the person will be treated as if he is still receiving that income. We are asking British Coal to advise benefit claimants to seek advice before making a decision.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to change the definition of non-dependants in relation to the qualification for severe disability premium.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are no current plans to do so.

  Family Credit Office (Blackpool)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the performance targets for the family credit office at Blackpool indicating which are not yet being achieved.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is in the table:

  Performance target

  Achievement

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  Clearance rate

  Average of 18 working days

  21

  19

  21

  Error rate

  7·0 per cent.

  8·6

  8·4

  7·9

  1 April-December 1990

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken to process a family credit claim by the DSS office at Blackpool.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 16 January at col.531.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what facilities are made available for telephone contact to be made by members of the public wishing to expedite family credit claims at Blackpool.

  Mr. Jack
  All claims for family credit are acknowledged by a letter which provides the number of a dedicated telephone inquiry section. This service provides direct contact via 40 telephone lines to a section staffed by experienced assessment clerks with on-line access to the family credit computer system. Claimants are provided with answers to their inquiries from information held on the database. Urgent messages are relayed to the operational sections to expedite claims and call-back arrangements operate to callers who require more detailed information from the assessment officers.

  Additional facilities operate for members of the public who visit the local offices of the Department by way of a local office helpdesk service which provides direct contact to an urgent information facility in cases of financial hardship.
  630
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the official staff complement necessary for undertaking family credit work at Blackpool; and how many employees are currently employed.

  Mr. Jack
  The current staffing complement at North Fylde central office to deal with family credit claims is 776. The number of staff employed as at 30 January 1991 was 779.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department has undertaken or commissioned to determine what savings are made in common agricultural policy commodity market support by farmers forestalling increased production by joining the environmentally sensitive areas scheme; and what are the results.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has commissioned studies from two universities and private consultants. The results so far received are being evaluated and will be taken into account in the review of environmentally sensitive areas policy.

  Statistics
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what differences in the statistical methods used there are between "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1990", and "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1989".

  Mr. Curry
  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" includes a large number of statistical tables containing figures compiled from a wide range of initial sources. There have been no significant changes in methodology between the 1989 and 1990 issues. However, as indicated in the preface, the figures, and particularly those for the latest (and partly forecast) year, are subject to revision as more information becomes available.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department has undertaken or commissioned to reinforce provision in the set-aside scheme to ensure a wider uptake.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply given to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 30 January 1991 at columns 543–44.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of beef have been imported from the Republic of Ireland during the last six months; what are the estimates for the next six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Imports of beef and veal from the Republic of Ireland from May to October 1990 (the most recent six-month period for which figures are available) were 31,793 tonnes, down 7,523 tonnes (19 per cent.) compared with the same period in 1989.
  631
  The level of imports from the Republic of Ireland will depend on a large number of factors, including developments in middle eastern markets.

  Bananas
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on when the European Commission will publish its proposals about the banana market post-1992; and what steps the Government are taking to encourage the Commission to publish its proposals without delay.

  Mr. Curry
  We understand that the Commission is working urgently on this issue but has not set a date for publishing its proposals. We have made clear to the Commission the importance we attach to achieving a satisfactory outcome.

  Sheep and Cow Subsidies
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the sheep subsidy and hill cow payments will be made; what delays there have been in payment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply, 18 January 1991, c. 616]: I am pleased to say that the difficulties referred to in the previous answer concerning the introduction of the new limit of 1·4 livestock units per hectare in the HLCA arrangements have now been resolved. Application forms can now be printed and will be issued to producers as soon as possible.

  I expect to announce the rates of HLCA payments shortly.

  My right hon. Friends and I shall, of course, do all we can to ensure that payments reach producers quickly just as soon as the necessary arrangements are all in place.

EMPLOYMENT

  Approved Training Organisations
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those employment training providers, including training agents and training managers, who commenced on 5 September 1988 have now achieved ATO status; and when he expects the remainder to do so.

  Mr. Jackson
  As at 30 December 1990, a total of 940 97 per cent—employment training providers had achieved stage one and 415—43 per cent.—had also achieved stage two of the approved training organisation award. As training and enterprise councils are established, they are taking over responsibility for making decisions on the remainder of providers in partnership with my Department. My right hon. and learned Friend said in July that he expected the ATO process to be completed not later than April 1991—Official Report, column 250.

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of investment in tourism and leisure projects in each of the last five years; and what is his estimate for the next two years' investment.

  Mr. Forth
  The table gives the latest figures published by the English tourist board of the amount of investment 632
  in tourism projects worth £500,000 or more which were completed during each of the last five calendar years. Further projects to a total value of £2,878 million were still under construction on 30 June 1990.

  Value of tourism projects completed during the year (England)

  Year

  £ million

  1985

  247

  1986

  452

  1987

  429

  1988

  605

  1989

  972

  The English tourist board does not publish forecasts of tourism investment.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement concerning the current position of the British tourist industry.

  Mr. Forth
  The tourism industry is an important component of our economy. It contributes some £22 billion to the United Kingdom's gross domestic product and provides work directly for nearly 1·5 million people. I am confident that the industry, working with the tourist boards, will be able to reassert its position in the world market once the Gulf crisis is resolved. The Government are determined to sustain international confidence in this country as a tourist destination. We have applied strict security measures at international airports and ports, and the security record of British airlines is first class. If visitors are deterred from travelling, this can only advance the potential terrorist's cause.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have now secured full-time employment directly after completion of an employment training programme undertaken in Hereford.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information about the destinations of people leaving ET is not held at the local level requested. The nearest area breakdown would be for the county of Hereford and Worcester. Follow-up results for the period August 1989 to July 1990 indicate that three months after leaving 30 per cent. of leavers were in full-time employment.

  Earnings
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average weekly rate of pay in(a) Southport and (b) England.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not available for Southport, but figures of average gross weekly earnings in April 1990 for Merseyside metropolitan county, and for England, are published in part E of the 1990 new earnings survey report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the expenditure on regional events for action for jobs in 1986–87 was spent through the Central Office of Information.

  Mr. Jackson
  None of the expenditure on Action for Jobs regional events in 1986–87 was spent through the Central Office of Information.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes he is proposing to make in the arrangements for the issue of work permits.

  Mr. Howard
  In May 1989 the Employment Department published a consultation paper as part of a deregulation review of the work permit scheme. This contained proposals to make the scheme more relevant to changed economic and labour market conditions and to make it more responsive to employers' needs. Those proposals have met with overwhelming support.

  The changes I will be making will considerably reduce the formalities for employers who need to bring to the United Kingdom essential staff who are subject to work permit requirements, whilst at the same time maintaining firm immigration control with no relaxation of the conditions required by the immigration rules. Permits will continue to be generally restricted to posts requiring highly qualified and skilled people, where there is no suitable United Kingdom or EC national available and will be for strictly limited duration, related to the essential needs of the employer. Only in exceptional circumstances will permits be given for the four-year period which can qualify an overseas national to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

  The main changes to the scheme, which will come into effect as soon as practicable, are as follows:

  (i) The evidence required to support an application will be reduced to the necessary minimum. For example, employers will no longer be required to advertise vacancies in the United Kingdom and EC if they can demonstrate that such advertisement would have been inappropriate or unproductive for the post in question.

  (ii) Procedures will be simplified to reduce delays and uncertainty when both the Employment Department and the Home Office need to be involved. In future employers will send all applications to the same point of contact in the Employment Department for initial consideration.

  (iii) Permits will no longer be resticted to those overseas nationals who have gained their qualifications and experience outside the United Kingdom. It will however remain the case that those admitted as students or for other reasons will not normally be permited to change to employment.

  There are a number of other more detailed changes which will simplify the application process for work permits. Full details will be given to those wishing to apply, when revised guidance notes are issued.

  The new arrangements will enable the Employment Department to provide a faster, better service taking greater account of the needs of business and resulting in considerable administrative savings for most employers who need to apply for permits. I intend also to recover the costs to the taxpayer of administering the scheme by introducing a service charge for work permit applications. Legislative proposals to allow this will be put forward when a suitable opportunity becomes available.

DEFENCE

  Temperature Records
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum temperature recorded at each meteorological station in Northern Ireland since 1 December 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The maximum and minimum temperatures reported at stations in Northern Ireland from 1 December 1990 to 26 January 1991 are as follows:

  Station

  Maximum deg. C

  Minimum deg. C

  Aldergrove

  11·9

  4·1

  Carmoney

  12·0

  1·6

  Carrigans

  12·7

  5·6

  Corgary

  11·6

  6·7

  Knockarevan

  12·0

  4·3

  Long Kesh

  13·0

  6·0

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average temperature recorded(a) each day and (b) each night at each meteorological station in Northern Ireland since 1 December 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Hourly records are required to produce daily values of the average temperature during(a) the day and (b) the night. Such information in Northern Ireland is available from only one station, Aldergrove.

  The figures are as follows:

  Day

  Night

  December

  1

  4·2

  4·4

  2

  6·0

  6·0

  3

  7·4

  6·8

  4

  7·8

  6·2

  5

  6·0

  5·5

  6

  6·2

  4·2

  7

  1·5

  -0·5

  8

  1·2

  3·4

  9

  3·7

  0·2

  10

  2·0

  1·5

  11

  7·3

  5·9

  12

  4·1

  0·3

  13

  2·1

  0·8

  14

  3·4

  0·5

  15

  -1·3

  -0·5

  16

  3·2

  4·5

  17

  2·9

  2·3

  18

  2·7

  1·5

  19

  3·8

  5·3

  20

  7·2

  6·5

  21

  9·6

  11·4

  22

  9·2

  4·9

  23

  6·4

  1·9

  24

  1·9

  5·3

  25

  3·8

  4·4

  26

  6·1

  1·7

  27

  1·7

  2·9

  28

  5·6

  2·0

  29

  1·8

  1·0

  30

  2·3

  1·8

  31

  1·9

  1·6

  January

  1

  9·1

  6·9

  2

  3·2

  1·6

  3

  1·3

  2·5

  4

  3·7

  4·3

  5

  4·2

  4·7

  635

  Day

  Night

  6

  2·0

  0·5

  7

  1·9

  0·3

  8

  0·3

  -0·5

  9

  1·4

  0·9

  10

  2·0

  2·1

  11

  3·5

  0·4

  12

  1·4

  -0·9

  13

  2·7

  2·6

  14

  3·4

  1·3

  15

  2·6

  4·1

  16

  5·1

  4·5

  17

  6·0

  6·2

  18

  6·3

  0·7

  19

  5·0

  8·0

  20

  8·4

  2·2

  21

  3·0

  5·7

  22

  6·2

  4·6

  23

  5·7

  5·5

  24

  5·8

  3·4

  25

  3·6

  -0·1

  26

  2·3

  1·8

  27

  2·5

  —

  Temperatures in degrees C. Day covers the period 0900–2100; night 2100–0900.

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether service men and women serving in the Gulf war will be provided with the opportunity to make free telephone calls.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider the introduction of a system of free telephone calls, limited in number and duration, to the United Kingdom or elsewhere, for service men in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today announced that the Ministry of Defence is introducing a concession on telephone calls equivalent to £10 a month for all service personnel in the Gulf.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider methods of subsidising the postage costs of sending food parcels from the families of those forces serving in the Gulf to the troops in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Forces' concessionary rates for parcel post to service personnel in the Gulf have been available since September 1990.

  Under this economy service, parcels are carried at the United Kingdom inland postage rates, which represent a significant saving over the rates for the Post Office's airmail service. Economy service parcels are being carried to the Gulf by RAF aircraft.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has made for the repatriation or local burial of United Kingdom troops killed in the Gulf conflict; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We will arrange for temporary local burial close to the battlefield. Once fighting has ceased the next-of-kin will be offered the option of having the body brought back to this country, wherever that is practical. Appropriate religious services will be arranged in accordance with the wishes of the next-of-kin. For those 636
  who die at sea, the decision on whether bodies should be taken ashore for later repatriation or buried at sea remains, as is traditional, with the commander of the vessel in the light of operational circumstances.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present estimated accumulated cost of the British presence in the Gulf arising from the invasion of Kuwait.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 30 January at column 558.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to enable medical practitioners who have volunteered for RAMC service in the Gulf to obtain personal insurance from private firms or through the Army PAX scheme at non-inflated rates.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is for individual insurance companies and underwriters to set premium levels in the light of the risks they are accepting. Personal insurance arrangements are, of course, a matter for the individual. The Ministry of Defence is, however, in contact with the insurance industry in order to ensure that new cover remains available to service personnel and that premiums remain as low as possible. We are also able to put personnel into contact with brokers who are experienced in meeting service needs. Where personnel are required to pay increased premiums for life insurance or the life element of personal accident insurance as a result of service, or liability for service, in the Gulf, the Ministry of Defence will meet 90 per cent. of the additional cost up to certain limits. These arrangements apply to reserve personnel who are called out as well as regulars. In addition, called-out reservists are eligible for the same generous attributable benefits of the armed forces pension scheme as are regular personnel.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the research paper on the explosive properties of reactor grade plutonium prepared by Dr. J. Carson Mark, former head of the theoretical division of the Los Alamos national nuclear laboratories, for the Washington DC-based Nuclear Control Institute in August 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Yes.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent studies have been(a) commissioned and (b) received by his Department on the long-term radiological impact of United Kingdom nuclear tests conducted at the Maralinga and Emu sites in Australia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department commissioned and has recently received a copy of the National Radiological Protection Board report "Assessment of the Potential Radiological Impact of Residual Contamination in the Maralinga and Emu Areas" (NRPB-R237). This was published in November 1990 as part of the report commissioned by the Australian Government of the technical assessment group (TAG) on rehabilitation of the former United Kingdom nuclear weapon test sites in Australia.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply on funding of the atomic weapons establishment of 12 December,Official Report, column 431, he will set out the policy considerations behind the practice of giving details of funding for the chemical defence establishment but not of funding for the atomic weapons establishment.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is Government policy to make information available wherever possible without detriment to the public interest. Data on the funding of the atomic weapons establishment would, however, allow judgments to be made on the scale and scope of the United Kingdom nuclear weapons programme which it would not be in the public interest to disclose.

  Iraq (Military Exports)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the value of military equipment, technology and training provided by the United Kingdom to Iraq in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) on 30 January,Official Report, Vol. 184, col. 558.

  Iraqi Detainees
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi military personnel have been detained since the outbreak of hostilities; and what they were doing in this country.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Thirty-five Iraqis known or suspected to be military personnel have been detained in this country as prisoners of war under the provisions of the third Geneva convention. All had entered the United Kingdom to study at various colleges.

  Aldershot Army Base
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on retaining the British Army base at Aldershot.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Until the future size and shape of the Army has been more clearly defined, I am unable to comment on the future of particular locations.

  Families for Defence
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support is provided by his Department to the organisation Families for Defence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Material explaining the Government's defence policy is made available to any individual or organisation who requests it, including Families for Defence. The Ministry of Defence provides no financial support to the group.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimated accumulated cost of British military action following the invasion of the Falkland Islands.
  638
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The accumulated cost of the British military action following the invasion of the Falkland Islands is estimated to be about £3·5 billion at outturn prices, equivalent to £4·9 billion at 1990–91 prices.

  Iraq (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ministerial visits have been made by his Department to Iraq since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been no visits by Defence Ministers to Iraq since 1979.

  Training Courses
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown of the number of places on his Department's training courses allocated to students from foreign and Commonwealth countries, indicating the countries from which these students came, during each of the years 1985 to 1990 inclusive.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following countries have sent personnel for training at United Kingdom service establishments on at least one occasion during each of the years 1985 to 1990 inclusive.

  Algeria

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Burma

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Chad

  Chile

  China

  Congo

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Djibouti

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gambia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Guyana

  Hong Kong

  India

  Indonesia

  Iraq

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Ivory Coast

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Lebanon

  639

  Lesotho

  Luxembourg

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Somalia

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  640

  Switzerland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Uganda

  United Arab Emirates

  United States of America

  Uruguay

  Venezuela

  Yemen

  Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  The approximate numbers of United Kingdom military training courses attended by overseas students in each financial year from 1985 to 1990 are as follows:

  Number

  1985–86

  5,150

  1986–87

  5,500

  1987–88

  4,850

  1988–89

  5,150

  1989–90

  4,750

  Further specific details about numbers trained are generally confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government concerned.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Rathcreedan—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Gulf War: Costs
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much financial support Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium have each given towards the cost of stationing United Kingdom armed forces in the Gulf.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that yesterday Germany made a contribution of some £275 million towards United Kingdom costs. Germany has also provided artillery ammunition as well as a substantial support package, including specialist vehicles, air transport and other spares. Belgium is providing air transport, medical support and logistic assistance. The Netherlands has provided artillery ammunition and is providing medical support. We are very grateful for the practical assistance our allies have provided for British deployments in the Gulf.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us wish warmly to congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the successful outcome of his visit to Germany in securing a payment that had previously apparently not even been offered? The House will be indebted to him for his successful effort. However, does my noble friend's Reply mean that in financial terms neither Belgium nor Holland has contributed a penny?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is quite correct at the moment. However, as regards material and military support both Belgium and Holland support us with medical units.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in congratulating the Foreign Secretary. I also agree that some of our other NATO allies could have been a little more forthcoming in their support. More seriously, I was extremely concerned at the report that Germany was withholding crucial Tornado spares which our forces may need. That raises a further question as to whether it is wise to become involved in European co-operative ventures where the production is shared among the partners if de facto it gives each of the partners a means of veto over the use of aircraft in each country. Can the noble Earl give us an assurance that Germany will not seek to hold back Tornado parts that our forces may need?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot give any assurance in that direction because it is up to the German nation. Other initiatives have been launched by Ministers, who will visit many countries for additional assistance in the light of the increased cost of the operations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we also welcome the assistance which we are to receive from Germany. Will the noble Earl confirm that the build-up cost of arms to the United Kingdom before the war broke out was £1 billion and the cost of the war is currently £3 million a day? Against that background, is not the United Kingdom receiving proportionately less than the United States from other countries that made a contribution such as Saudi Arabia? Given that Saudi Arabia gave 36 billion dollars to the United States, is there any chance that the United Kingdom, which is making an outstanding contribution, should receive at least a little more?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, first, the figure for the build-up cost so far is £1.25 billion; secondly, the full operating cost of forces in the Gulf has risen to somewhat more than £4 million per day.
As regards further financial contributions from Japan, this country has received a significant amount from the 2 billion dollar fund set up to assist nations' contributions to the Gulf effort. It has recently announced a further 9 billion dollars in addition to the fund from which we hope to benefit.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm or deny reports that the Belgians refused to supply British forces with ammunition?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that was initially correct but we hope that that episode is at an end. There are government initiatives and much negotiation is going on with other countries across the world for further money and military aid.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, with great respect to what the Minister said, the contribution from Belgium is absolutely farcical. That country owes much to us and people like us and it is nonsense to talk about European unity when the contribution of a country like Belgium is negligible. Is the Minister satisfied with what it is doing?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, Belgium may have had initial problems in providing anything concrete from the point of view of military aid or financial assistance in the first instance. But it is on its way. It is providing medical support, air transport and logistic support.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, are the Belgians providing the ammunition? Are the Germans allowing the forces Tornado spare parts? May we have a straight answer to those two questions?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge Belgium is not providing ammunition. I shall have to write to my noble friend concerning the prohibition on the supply of German Tornado spare parts.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is this not among the many problems which the Government appear to have failed to take into consideration when they decided to become the chief ally of the United States in this enterprise? Are we to discover other matters which they may appear to have forgotten?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I have already indicated, strong negotiations are under way under ministerial initiatives with many countries throughout the world for further money and further military assistance.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, have the Government made approaches or will they consider doing so to our colleagues in the EC to ascertain whether they are able to help so that wounded British servicemen may, if necessary, be accommodated or looked after in EC hospitals in Europe?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is another question for another day.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, the Government have mentioned negotiations taking place around the world. Does that include Japan?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe I have indicated that Japan has been generous and has made some 2 billion dollars available. Japan has also made a further sum of 9 billion dollars available from which we hope to receive our reward.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that his narrative unfortunately must put paid to these ideas of a common European defence policy?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot agree with that. As I have said, there is much to negotiate and I hope that much will happen in the near future.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, what decisions were taken at the outset of hostilities regarding the contribution that each country should make towards the costs of the war?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, discussions on contributions towards the costs of the conflict have been taking place for some time. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, our forces will not be cash limited. They must have whatever is necessary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider the reply he gave to his noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway? Would it not be foolish for this country to allow Europe to make decisions on our foreign policy, our defence policy and perhaps on the control of our armed forces, bearing in mind our recent experiences? Does this episode not show that the fanatical Euro-federalists are wrong?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Question we are discussing relates to contributions towards costs.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that while this country, in my view, clearly has an outstanding record on valour and willingness to act in relation to the Gulf, it might nonetheless be wiser to let our light stand out on its own and not go round lecturing anyone and making as many enemies as we can?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are not lecturing anyone, nor to the best of my knowledge are we making enemies.

Local Government: European Charter
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will sign the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government have no plans to sign the charter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given that the 23 member countries of the Council of Europe, with the exceptions only of Britain, Switzerland, Malta, Ireland and San Marino, have signed the European Charter of Local Self-Government, will the Minister tell the House what articles of the charter Her Majesty's Government find unacceptable?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, to give just one example, the Government object to the powers of general competence contained in the charter. That provision means that local authorities would be empowered to do absolutely anything they wished outside the provisions proscribed by Parliament.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that during the term of the former Prime Minister from 1979 until her resignation, the Conservative Government in this country had a reputation for showing pathological hatred towards local government? This reputation was gained when the Government removed powers and responsibilities from local government. Is the Minister further aware that unless the Government sign the charter, they will stand condemned for the same attitude?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree with that premise. This Government have a fine record of supporting local government which is not at threat.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not wish to show pathological hatred to anyone or anything. However, is it not a fact that there are local authorities and local authorities, and it is far better that all should be governed by the rule of law?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that while it is proper that local authorities should be governed by the rule of law, they should not be governed by central government? Is it not the policy of the Government to govern local authorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is for Parliament to pass the laws of the country and it is for local authorities to operate within a framework determined by Parliament.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are no signatories of the charter

793
which do not abide by the rule of law regarding local government? Without expressing any comment about the Government's record on local self-government, I hope I may suggest that it would do the Government a lot of good in this country and overseas if we were to sign the charter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not entirely agree with my noble friend. Sweden signed and ratified the charter but that did not prevent it from prohibiting its local authorities from raising taxes for two years.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that the present position of the Prime Minister is that the review of local authority expenditure and government should be a fundamental review and that nothing should be excluded from it? Under those circumstances would it not be appropriate for the matter of adhesion to the European charter to be referred to the review for consideration?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, although we have neither signed nor ratified the charter, I am not aware of any breach on the part of the United Kingdom of any of the terms of the charter. As regards the review, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government believe in the proper accountability of local councillors to their electorate? Is not the best way of achieving that to give local authorities powers of general competence so that the electorate know exactly who is making the decisions locally and can therefore hire or fire them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in reality I know of no country which would allow local authorities to range far and wide beyond what is appropriate in terms of local decision-making.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it clear to the Minister from the previous supplementary question whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is for or against the European charter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a question for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to answer.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that if one were looking for an example of a country with exemplary local government, one would look to Switzerland, which apparently has not found it necessary to sign the charter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The constitution of Switzerland precludes it from signing the charter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British delegations to Hungary, Poland and Bulgaria have urged those fledgling democracies to adopt the charter, but at the same time those urging that course of action have themselves stood aloof?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware that this Government have spent a great deal of time and energy persuading those governments to provide democratic local government. I am also aware that
794
many delegations from those countries come to the United Kingdom to witness examples of good democratic local government.

Marina Berths: Control
3.17 p.m.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the ownership and control of marina berths on the south coast of England.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Office of Fair Trading has received a number of representations on this issue. The matter is currently being considered and the Director General of Fair Trading will in due course advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there is any case for a monopoly reference of marina services.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply which will give some comfort to the many yachtsmen who are disturbed about the current situation. However, is it not a fact that the Fair Trading Act 1973 specifically excluded investigation into port activities? Are the Government not aware that today marinas are far more prevalent than they were then? Are they further aware—this is a more important consideration—that one single company now controls nearly 50 per cent. of marina berths in the Solent area and, I believe, up to 100 per cent. of berths in the Torbay area?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, under the terms of the Fair Trading Act 1973 monopoly situations in relation to the supply of goods or services may be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The director general will consider in his advice on this matter whether the provision of marina berths constitutes a supply of goods and services.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that there is tremendous anxiety among the ever growing body of people who use these ports that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should take this matter seriously? The situation which obtains at present cannot be allowed to continue.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should point out to my noble friend that the matter is being considered at the moment by the Office of Fair Trading. There has been no recommendation to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. One of the reasons for the investigation is to discover the facts with regard to some of the details that my noble friend has referred to.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the different charges that apply in the UK and on the Continent respectively? Nightly charges for berths here can be almost double those in France and Holland and annual charges in the UK may be more than double those levied on the Continent. If this matter is not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, people on

795
modest incomes will find small boat sailing beyond their means. Does my noble friend agree that that is a very undesirable prospect for a maritime nation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are certainly aware that different prices are charged in different places on the south coast and, as my noble friend pointed out, that there is a difference between the prices charged in northern France and on the south coast. It is possible that there is greater availability of marina berths on the Continent than on the south coast of England and that that is one reason for the higher prices.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is there another way of tackling this problem, which noble Lords recognise? Is there not a case for saying that because charges are high on the south coast and there is a concentration of ownership of marina berths there could be an unregistered restrictive practice? Is it not also the case that the Director General of Fair Trading has the right to refer such a practice to the competition court?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, may be correct, However, I am sure that he will not expect me to anticipate the deliberations of the director general.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, will my noble friend draw the Government's attention to the fact that the Lymington harbour commissioners, a small non-profit making body, are being threatened by the Crown Estate Commissioners with an increase of 6,500 per cent.? Is that legal under the 1961 Crown Estate Act under which the commissioners are not allowed to ask more than the going rate when they are in a monopoly position?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am, as always, grateful to my noble friend for his contribution. However, on this occasion I suggest that that is another question. If he were to put down such a Question I should be more than happy to answer it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is not the Minister underestimating the powers and authority of a Minister of the Crown, which, I believe, is what he is until further notice? Is he not perfectly entitled to draw the attention of the director general to the possibility of there being in this instance an unregistered restrictive practice?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, he may well be correct and that is a matter which is being considered by the director general. He would not expect me to predict the director general's decision.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Fair Trading Act might be amended to protect the leisure industry in port facilities, so opening such activity to greater competition? Does he agree also that that would be in the spirit of what this Government want to do?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Schedule 7 of the Fair Trading Act lists services, including port facilities,
796
which are outside the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading to refer to the MMC. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State could make a reference if necessary. That is why in this particular case the director general will report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

NHS: Hospital Waiting Lists
3.23 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What extra financial help is available for health authorities to provide more beds to curb rising waiting lists.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is the time patients wait which is important, and that is reducing. We are continuing the special waiting list fund in 1991–92 with a further £35 million to help health authorities make continued progress in tackling long waiting times.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that illness rationing, the removal of certain diseases from the emergency list and the cutting back of the emergency bed service represent a savage departure from the principles of our National Health Service?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to exclusions, there is no question of denying treatment to people who need it. The decision whether to put a patient on a waiting list remains a clinical one. Duncan Nichol, the health service chief executive, has written to regional managers to emphasis that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that it has recently been announced that more money is to be given to regional health authorities to be used in any way they see fit? Is it not also important to remember that waiting lists can be cut by other means, such as the use of more day surgery? Does my noble friend agree that beds themselves are not the answer and that it is the use made of those beds which is important? Beds should be used to best advantage.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, indeed, additional money is being made available for the waiting list fund to which I referred. Our special waiting list fund of £154 million over five years has helped health authorities to tackle the problem of long waits. Hundreds of thousands of additional patients have been treated as a result and waiting times have been reduced. It is the case that there are other ways of reducing waiting lists. The number of day patients increased by 17 per cent. to March 1990, reflecting the increased number of patients treated on that basis.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, further to the Question of my noble friend Lord Molloy, will the Minister comment specifically on the decision of the North-Eastern Regional Health Authority to deal with its historically long waiting list by restricting the cases, such as varicose veins, which can be put on the waiting lists? Since the region is merely an agent of the

797
Secretary of State, was that decision approved by the Secretary of State? Is that likely to be a policy which will be adopted across the country and will the National Health Service now cut back on certain treatments which have been available until now?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not aware that that is the policy. As I said, nobody who needs treatment is being denied it. Treatment is a clinical decision.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord must be aware that in most regions hospitals have been closed. Is he also aware that that is causing grave anxiety, not only among ordinary people but also among the medical profession? I could arrange a meeting for the Minister with many eminent people from the medical profession who know those facts. Can he say what is the current rate—which is said to be alarming—of reduction in the number of hospital beds throughout the country?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the question of hospital closures does not appear directly on the Order Paper and I am not aware how many, if any, are being closed. As the noble Lord knows, there is a considerable consultation process and if there is disagreement among local bodies the matter is referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There is no simple relationship between numbers of beds, patients treated and waiting lists. I acknowledge that over the past year the number of beds available fell by 4.6 per cent., but the number of patients treated increased by 4.4 per cent. The number of patients waiting for more than a year fell by 7 per cent. The National Health Service exists to treat patients, not to hoard beds.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Gulf.

Divorce: Law Commission Report
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Law Commission Report The Ground for Divorce (H.C. 636, Session 1989–90).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, last November the Law Commission, in its report The Ground for Divorce, made important proposals for the reform of the law. It is a topic which calls forth strong emotions and deeply felt and differing views. The Government's purpose in initiating this debate today is to give noble Lords an opportunity to express their views and in so doing to stimulate a wider debate in the country at large.
The Government believe that it is too early for us to attempt to gauge whether reform of divorce law is desirable, much less to say whether the Law Commission's proposals would represent the best way
798
forward if reform were needed. Any such decisions would be premature until we had had an opportunity to hear the widest range of public and parliamentary opinion. Accordingly, I see my part in today's debate as being essentially that of a listener.
However, before I sit down it may help the House if I say something about the wider context in which the divorce reform proposals need now to be considered; give a summary of the current law and some of the facts and figures relevant to the working of the present divorce regime; describe the risks and damage to the welfare of children which ensue from family breakdown; outline some of the Law Commission's thinking and its major recommendation; and, finally, attempt to identify and clarify the objectives of, and issues arising from, its proposals to reform divorce law.
As to the wider context, your Lordships will remember that in the course of the debates on what is now the Children Act 1989 I anounced a general review of the family justice system which would embrace that Act and its implementation and go on in stages to consider: divorce reform and conciliation; the remedies available for domestic violence and rights to occupy the family home; the law governing financial provision on family breakdown; and the arrangements for providing support to courts and families involved in family litigation.
I explained that the reform of the courts' procedure and jurisdictions in family matters would be reviewed as the decisions on changes in the substantive law were taken and we were able to identify what precisely the courts' tasks and objectives were in the areas of law concerned. To that end the Government set up a committee of officials representing the various departments whose interests are involved to co-ordinate and pursue the review. I can report to the House today that the review is well in hand. The implementation of the Children Act, its first and a very major task, is on line for October this year. In implementing the Children Act we will enable all proceedings relating to the same child and his family to be consolidated before a single court where that is appropriate and, as important, ensure that at every level the magistrates or judges concerned are specialists in the sense of having received specialist training and devoting a significant part of their time to sitting in family matters. What is more, local authority cases involving the care of children, while continuing to start in magistrates' courts, will be heard there by a new family proceedings court and in appropriate cases be transferred up to a higher court where their weight or complexity justifies it.
The Government have also made progress on reviewing financial provision on family breakdown with the publication of its White Paper on child maintenance, Children Come First. Our proposals in the White Paper carry forward the philosophy of the Children Act in giving priority to the child's interests and emphasising the primary responsibility of parents for the support and upbringing of their children.
The Law Commission's report on domestic violence and rights to occupy the family home is expected some time in the next 12 months. And, as

799
today demonstrates, the Government are already beginning actively to consider divorce and the related issue of conciliation.
As I have already indicated, our first priority in the course of that review will be the welfare of children and the responsibility of their parents for safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Overall, our objective is not only to improve the substantive law but also to ensure that the best use is made of existing resources, with cases matched to the appropriate level of court and with courts concentrating on what they are good at; namely, the resolution of disputes where an authoritative judicial decision has something positive to contribute to a family's well-being.
Divorce is central to much of the review because in practice it is the hub round which the remedies relating to the upbringing of children and financial arrangements after separation all too often revolve. If our improvements in these other areas of the law are to become a reality for children and their parents by providing a system consistent in its practice and philosophy we need to have a divorce process which at the very least does not obstruct that objective and, better still, one which would promote it. That thought must be central to any comparison between the current law and proposals for change.
Turning now to the present law and the facts and figures relevant to its working, let me begin with the legal framework. The position today is that since 1969 there has been one ground, and one ground only, on which the court has power to dissolve a marriage; it is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. But this is not the whole story. To establish breakdown it is necessary as a matter of law for one of the parties to satisfy the court that there has either been adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion by the other party, or that two years' separation has elapsed accompanied by consent to the divorce, or that there has been five years' separation. Divorce is therefore only partially fault-based now. Thus, no allegation of fault is required if couples agree to separate and to wait two years and no fault is required if couples do not agree to divorce provided that five years have elapsed since one of the parties left home. So, if couples can afford to wait two or five years in separate households, or wish to do so, they may avoid any element of fault even as the law now stands.
Of the 151,309 decrees nisi granted in 1989, only 36,420 relied on separation rather than fault, which is about 24 per cent. Fault, it appears, has one alluring advantage in that it allows for quick divorce. It is not therefore surprising, though it may be distressing, that the largest number of people, over 100,000 (112,160 to be precise) chose that route and alleged adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion against their partner in 1989. This represents over 74 per cent. of all divorces. The allegations of fault in practice provided the parties concerned with a passport to an immediate divorce with only 635 fault-based petitions being contested and listed for trial in 1989, of which less than half actually reached trial. The figures thus show that nearly three quarters of all divorced couples presently choose quick and uncontested divorce in which fault is
800
alleged but never investigated. When I say "quick", I mean that the average length of time that it takes to get a divorce is between four to six months from the presentation of a petition to the granting of a decree nisi. A decree absolute takes a further six weeks. The present law, however, while providing for a quick divorce, does not formally provide an opportunity for the resolution of disputes or for negotiations about money, property, or even the children, ahead of the decree nisi.
The court may not, at present, however, make a decree absolute unless it is satisfied that arrangements have been made for the welfare of every child of the marriage; that these arrangements are in themselves satisfactory, or are the best that can be devised in the circumstances. It is the duty of the court to obtain sufficient information to indicate that there is a reasonable probability of adequate financial provision being made for the children and that the child will have reasonable accommodation. Going further into the facts and figures we begin to see an ever more disturbing picture if we regard divorce as being one measure of the rate of family breakdown and breakdown as a barometer of the health of the family in England and Wales today.
In 1990, 155,591 couples obtained a divorce by decree nisi. The previous year the figure was 151,309, and the year before that it was 154,788. The number of petitions presented in those three years has risen steadily: over 182,000 and 184,000 in 1988 and 1989 respectively and reaching in excess of 189,255 in 1990. More significantly, and more worrying in my personal view, are the figures which tell us how many orders were made relating to children. In 1989, 152,825 orders were made in respect of the upbringing of children involved in divorce, of which over 100,000 were contested. It thus appears that over 148,162 children under 16 were affected by divorce in 1989. If current trends continue almost one in four of all children will experience divorce in their family before the age of 16. Those are sombre figures, especially when one considers what effects research has shown family breakdown to have on the lives of children.
Research work has shown that there is a significant excess in the signs of emotional disruption among children of broken families, not just in the short term but, apparently, on into adolescence and even adulthood. The research points to increased delinquency, increased ill health and a greater likelihood of divorce in spouses who themselves where the children of broken homes. These effects are particularly marked where the breakdown occurred in the first five years of the child's life. Some explanation for these dismal consequences has been found in the frequent fall in the socio-economic position of the lone parent and the children after the divorce. For instance, in 1989 there were some 770,000 lone parent families dependent on income support and as many as 70 per cent. of absent parents were not making any regular payments.
Another significant effect of divorce has been the reduced educational achievement in children of divorced parents, leading not only to fewer of these children going on to further education when

801
compared with their contemporaries but also to fewer of them obtaining employment at all once they leave school.
What is important about the current research is not just the awful evidence of the trauma which family breakdown causes children, but the positive evidence that it can be avoided, or at least reduced, in certain circumstances. These circumstances are relevant to the debate today.
Probably the most significant research recently published has shown the effect of parental conflict as a pervasive and destructive influence on the children where family breakdown occurs. The obverse is also evident. The situation shown to be most conducive to a child's welfare is one in which there is a minimum of conflict between the parents and a maximum of co-operation and agreement over the upbringing of the child. This points to a need to achieve or maintain a situation where both parents remain easily accessible and properly involved with their children in the event of a separation.
In the face of such research, and with so many families and so many children already subject to divorce, it must be right to look not only at the technical rules of law governing when a marriage should be capable of dissolution but also at the process of divorce through which people pass today and how it may affect them. It is against that background that the Law Commission has examined the issue and presented its proposals. It is also against that background that any argument for or against changes to divorce law must be considered.
The Law Commission's report recommends that the sole ground for divorce should remain the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The commission, however, recommends the abolition of the five facts, one of which presently has to be alleged. In their stead it proposes that the passage of a certain period of time—12 months—should elapse before the marriage may be dissolved. The commission proposes that this period be initiated by the lodging in court of a declaration by one or both of the parties that the marriage has broken down. The purpose of this period is that the parties should reflect on the consquences of their proposed divorce and consider carefully whether there is any prospect of saving the marriage. Further, where divorce is pursued they would be expected to identify the problems which needed to be resolved and, where possible, make the practical arrangements for dealing with them. The commission had particularly in mind questions relating to the care of any children.
The Law Commission points out that its proposal would effectively put an end to the granting of a quick divorce virtually on demand and ahead of settling arrangements for the future. That latter aim is underlined by the commission's proposal that the granting of a divorce should be modified by two powers. First, it recommends a power to postpone a decree when this is desirable to enable proper arrangements to be made either for the children's upbringing or for financial provision and property adjustment for the benefit of any children or either spouse. The second power recommended in the report
802
proposes that the court should be able to refuse a divorce in any case where the divorce would cause grave financial or other hardship to the other party and where, in all circumstances, it would be wrong to grant the divorce. That is an important part of the commission's proposals which I should like to emphasise.
The Law Commission emphasises that the 12-month period would make couples face up to the financial and emotional consequences of divorce before a decree was granted rather than afterwards. It also argues that providing time could help couples to seek help from counselling or conciliation and mediation services. It is its view that it would put at the forefront of divorce a clear encouragement to the spouses to face up to their problems at the initial stages of a breakdown and thus encourage people to recognise and reconcile their differences within marriage itself. If that failed it would provide a clear opportunity for resolving any disagreements or entrenched areas of conflict within the divorce procedure.
The main changes in the law and practice which the commission's proposals would bring about are, first, that fault as a legal requirement would not attach to divorce. The single fact of proof would be the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Secondly, parties would have 12 months before a divorce was granted to settle arrangements about the children and any property or money rather than doing so as at present in ancillary proceedings after the decree is granted. In practice this would extend the period that it takes the majority of divorces to reach the ultimate decree absolute.
Thirdly, the Law Commission argues that its proposals would put consideration of the family's future arrangements in the forefront for resolution within a fixed period of time and could encourage couples to draw breath and seek some relevant help. The kind of help envisaged by the commission encourages the idea that families should take responsibility for their broken relationships instead of immediately jettisoning the family into divorce on the instant presentation of a fault-based petition.
I turn briefly to the last part of my promised disquisition; that is, attempting to identify and clarify what seems to me to be the major issues which we face in reforming divorce. Perhaps I may start with a matter of clarification. Divorce and family breakdown are not synonymous. As I shall explain, while there is an argument that the availability of divorce can in a general way affect the rate of family breakdown, I do not think it realistic to believe that if we banned or restricted divorce tomorrow the rate of family breakdown would be reduced markedly as a result; at least not in the short or medium term. If that is so, denying or restricting divorce would not relieve us of the need to find ways to deal with all the sequelae of actual separation, such as the arrangements for the children, financial provision and the apportionment of property or at least its enjoyment. Indeed, in a peculiar way, although divorce is the focus for many of our concerns about the rate and results of family breakdown, the actual legal effect of dissolving the

803
marriage may be seen in many cases as having the least practical importance to the family concerned as compared with the other consequences of the family breakdown itself.
Secondly, to expand on a matter that I have already mentioned, given the fact that generally divorce involves those other aspects of family law, it must be right to look at the practical process by which divorce and the attendant problems of family breakdown are dealt with in the courts. Accordingly, like the Law Commission, we need to give attention to the process as well as rules governing the right to end a marriage.
I turn to the objectives of divorce reform and the issues to which it gives rises. I am in no personal doubt that our overall objective, as elsewhere in family law, should be to protect children as far as possible from the harm which family breakdown can inflict on them. That is the Government's first and clear priority. And that objective, in the context of divorce, will be best secured, in most people's minds, by a law which on the one hand supports the institution of marriage and on the other promotes the prospects of saving marriages which run into trouble; or, if that is not possible, promotes the prospects of the parents reaching agreement about the children and related issues of money and property and establishing a working relationship in which, though separated, both can play a full part in the child's upbringing and support.
As to supporting the institution of marriage, there is concern that the Law Commission's proposal finally to eliminate the residual element of fault from divorce law will send out the wrong message by removing the moral underpinning of marriage; that doing so will undermine people's respect generally for marriage and in the long term cause a higher rate of family breakdown. Against that it can be said that the near absolute right to a divorce and the culture of the "quickie divorce" to which fault has given rise may already be sending out the wrong message and that a statutory cooling-off period structured to emphasise the responsibilities of marriage is a clearer message about the true value and purpose of marriage itself. Personally, I find this an extremely difficult matter. It is curious that some people look to the re-introduction of a full fault-based system as a way of strengthening the institution of marriage when fault is used in the current mixed system to achieve the quickest divorces.
As to the objective of promoting the chances of saving marriages once they have run into trouble, no one perhaps would argue that formal and public allegations of fault, which are overwhelmingly the most used avenue to divorce, can enhance the prospects of reconciliation or, if that is not possible, the chances of the parties reaching accord about their children's upbringing and related matters and, most important of all, re-establishing a working relationship as parents for the future.
On the other hand, it may be said that bitterness is endemic in family breakdown and divorce; that the expression and formal finding of fault can be cathartic; and that if feelings of anger, injustice and hurt are not recognised in the law and allowed for in the process itself they will remain to fester and
804
undermine the sort of co-operation that everyone seems to be agreed generally benefits children of separated parents.
As a footnote to that aspect of the debate, the House may wish to note that behaviour will of course remain relevant to matters of property and finance between the spouses. What is more, I understand that many of those concerned with marriage and divorce counselling and conciliation services see bringing the parties to accept their share of the responsibility or blame for the breakdown as a vital step in that process. To that extent, even were we to change the formal ground for divorce to remove fault, behaviour and blame will continue to feature in this process and need to be catered for.
I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views. Thrown into the arena, I am sure, will be the many moral, practical and philosophical issues that arise in discussion on any major social reform. It is easy to discuss divorce without emphasising the value of marriage as the foremost example of what can best assure the welfare of children and society as a whole. Nevertheless, divorce is an unavoidable element of life today and an area of life which, as I said earlier, invokes strong feelings in a great many people. I borrow some of the Law Commission's thoughts when I say that it is vital that the way forward in the area of divorce is developed with the most careful consideration and reflection. And I borrow again when I ask your Lordships to question not necessarily whether divorce should be easier, harder, take longer or be shorter but whether there can be and should be a better divorce law for those people who find no alternative to making use of that means of resolving their family problems.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Law Commission Report The Ground for Divorce (H.C. 636, Session 1989–90). —(The Lord Chancellor.)

The Gulf War
3.52 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Gulf and various matters arising.
"The allied campaign to liberate Kuwait was launched two weeks ago. The initial aim has been to establish air supremacy and then sufficiently to reduce the military capability of the Iraqis armed forces so that the liberation of Kuwait would be successfully achieved with the minimum of casualties to our forces.
"During this first period over 30,000 allied sorties have been flown against what was initially substantial air defences. From these 30,000 sorties 19 aircraft have not returned of which five were British. The House knows of those most regrettable losses in the first week, but will be pleased to note

805
that none has been lost in the past week. That pleasure is combined with the deepest admiration for the skill and courage of our aircrews and of all the allies at the way they have sustained this vital air campaign. The initial denial to the Iraqis of the use of their airfields, in which the Tornados played such a critical part, the progressive suppression of their ground air defences, the shooting down of their aircraft seeking combat, have enabled air supremacy to be achieved so that hardened aircraft shelters and other military and strategic targets can be progressively attacked. This supremacy has been underlined by the sudden departure of some 100 Iraqi aircraft to Iran.
"The achievements of the air campaign so far include the destruction of all nuclear reactor capacity, about half of their biological and chemical production, military fuel and ammunition stores, a number of airfields out of action, major damage to command and control facilities, loss of centralised control of air defences, progressive reduction of Scud launch capability, and 22 bridges hit to inhibit re-supply of Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
"However substantial as these achievements are, I must warn the House that so vast is the Iraqi military capacity that it is likely to be some time yet before it will be sufficiently reduced to proceed with the liberation of Kuwait.
"In this connection, we have received a request from the US government for a limited number of B52s to be temporarily based at RAF Fairford to undertake missions with conventional munitions against Iraqi military or strategic targets which are supporting the continuing Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. RAF Fairford is an established forward operating base for B52s and the Government have readily agreed to their request.
"At sea, while the allied navies have been much involved since August in enforcing the embargo, it is only in the last few days that there has been any significant action against the Iraqi navy. In these engagements in which RN Lynx helicopters and RAF Jaguars have played an important role, 10 Iraqi patrol boats and minesweepers have been sunk and up to a further 25 damaged. A number of these: vessels had an Exocet capability. These naval encounters have frustrated what may have been an amphibious attack designed to coincide with the land attack at Khafji which occurred yesterday.
"In respect of the 1st Armoured Division, the continuing delivery of supplies is further enhancing its battle-ready capability.
"The House will be aware that we are now starting to hold a number of Iraqi POWs. I wish to affirm again that they will be held in strict conformity with the requirements of the Geneva Convention. That is our absolute commitment, and we insist on those requirements being observed by the Government of Iraq as well. To parade captured aircrew on television is in total breach of the convention as would be any detention of them at strategic sites. I regret to inform the House that
806
the ICRC has still not even been informed of the names of any prisoners, let alone granted the access to which they are entitled. This inhuman treatment of the prisoners is causing great distress and the thoughts of us all are with their families, as is our admiration for the courage and steadfastness at such a difficult time. I confirm that we are making the strongest representations to the ICRC and the Iraqi authorities for these our concerns to be met.
"I turn now to our strengths in the Gulf. At the start of operations we had committed some 35,000 men to the Gulf. We have been strengthening units already deployed. Three additional battalions are being deployed to fulfil our obligations to prisoners of war. With the extra half squadron of Buccaneers I announced on 25th January, the total of UK personnel now committed will rise to about 42,000.
"The full operating costs in 1990–91 are now over £1·25 billion, excluding the cost of any replacement of loss of equipment and of munitions used. The daily operating cost has risen to over £4 million which so far would total nearly £200 million.
"In connection with these costs, I very much welcome the announcement by the German Government of a further 800 million deutschmarks contribution to our costs. We are very hopeful of other contributions from our friends and allies in support of our efforts in support of the United Nations.
"Turning now to matters of particular interest to our forces and their families, there have been complaints over difficulties in the availability at Post Offices of the very popular airletter, the bluey, and steps have been taken which I hope have dealt with this problem.
"Some honourable Members have told me of service families being charged normal international airmail rates for sending parcels to the Gulf. From tomorrow, I am pleased to announce that the Post Office is suspending the use of normal airmail rates for any parcels sent to BFPO addresses. All will be charged at the UK inland parcel rate. This clear instruction should end any confusion at Post Office counters about our policy.
"The telephone service we installed with the help of British Telecom and Mercury has been very popular but it is obviously somewhat expensive. We are therefore proposing to subsidise calls for all service personnel from the Gulf on a basis similar to that for forces in Northern Ireland. The value of this will be up to £10 a month; affecting, for example, three-minute calls at half price. I have to say to the House that many of our forces are not actually in early reach of a telephone kiosk at present, but their entitlements under this scheme will be accumulated for later use.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State. It is

807
important that the Government keep Parliament fully informed, in so far as we can be fully informed, about the progress of events in the Gulf. On behalf of the Opposition, I join the Government in congratulating the coalition forces on the achievement so far and in extending our sympathy to the families and relatives of those who may be lost or missing in action.
If I have some questions on the Statement for the Minister, I shall fully understand if he replies that they are too sensitive to answer. I wish in all respects to be as co-operative as possible. Nevertheless, I am sure that your Lordships will be interested if those questions can be answered without endangering our effort in the Gulf.
The Minister said that we now have air supremacy. Will he give a definition of what air supremacy means? We have had a number of definitions in the press, some of them contradictory, as between air supremacy and air superiority. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point.
Secondly, is there any indication of what the motive was for the sudden departure of some 100 Iraqi aircraft to Iran? It is a most mysterious event. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether the Government believe it was some planned venture or pilots defecting individually. What was it all about?
On the question of nuclear reactor capacity which the Minister said in the Statement had been destroyed in Iraq, does that mean, in the Government's view, that Iraq has no capacity for putting nuclear warheads on Scud missiles, or any other missile if it comes to that?
Fourthly, what in the Government's view was the point of the land attack at Khafji yesterday? Was it a propaganda effort by the Iraqis to show initiative? Indeed, it gained some propaganda value for the Iraqis; it showed that they were still around. How do the Government interpret what the Iraqi Government were trying to do?
We join with the Government in deprecating the treatment of prisoners of war by the Iraqis. We are glad that the Government are reaffirming their intention to follow the Geneva Convention in the treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war. If the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been informed of the names of the prisoners, let alone been granted the access to which it is entitled, are there any other measures that the Government can take? We have recourse, for instance, to other diplomatic representation in Baghdad to ensure that prisoners of war receive proper treatment.
We give an unqualified welcome to the telephone and parcel rates to which the Minister referred. It is tremendously important for morale that forces in the Gulf should be encouraged to keep as much contact with home as they can. It is a tough life out there. Anything we can do to support them is welcome.
The most sombre part of the Statement was that it is likely to be some time yet before the Iraqi military capacity is sufficiently reduced to proceed with the liberation of Kuwait. We understand that; I am sure
808
that all your Lordships understand. All we can do at this stage is to congratulate the allied forces on their efforts so far and wish them well in the future.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we too wish to express our gratitude to the Minister for repeating the Statement. We join also in the sense of outrage that he and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, expressed about the treatment of prisoners of war. We note with satisfaction the big efforts the Government are making to try to make life a little more tolerable for the forces in the Gulf.
So much is happening in the Gulf that it is easy to under-rate the navy's magnificent achievement there in recent days. I do not know whether I am correct in my belief that in the Falklands and in the Gulf, every one of 19 Skua missiles discharged operationally has found the target. Whether that is so or not, the helicopter pilots, designers and manufacturers concerned deserve our warm admiration and thanks. The navy's achievement has been remarkable and should not be overlooked amid all the other important events that are taking place.
We welcome the Government's statement that air supremacy has been achieved. I take air supremacy to mean freedom of the skies for our aircraft and the complete eradication of the enemy air effort. If that is so, it is an important achievement and a milestone in the war. Perhaps I may say how glad we feel that the Minister linked that achievement with a tribute to our Tornados and our Tornado pilots who had the toughest job of all right at the beginning and who paved the way to subsequent achievements.
It was a surprise to hear about B52s being based at RAF Fairford. If that is operationally necessary and helpful we on these Benches support it wholeheartedly. I hope that security objections will not prevent the Minister explaining more of the thinking behind the move. Why Fairford? Other more accessible and handier bases come to mind. Without in any way risking a security breach, I wonder whether the Minister can say why Fairford has been chosen as an operational base for B52s.
Will the Minister say something about the remarkable Soviet-American agreement published yesterday? It spelled out with greater clarity, and more positively than before, what the two powers feel about the war aims and the handling of the Palestinian question after the war. Do the Government agree with that statement? There has been some disagreement among the coalition partners about the war aims. There is apparently some disagreement between the State Department and the White House. I am sure that it would be helpful to the House if the Minister could enlighten us about the Government's attitude.
In general, as the Statement sets out a story of success, we find it reassuring. We hope and believe that the Government will not move from the war aims stated in the Security Council resolution. On that basis, the Government can be sure beyond doubt that they will have the support of these Benches.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I start by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Mayhew, for their warm appreciation

809
of, and support for, our success so far, and for their understanding that these are difficult and trying times not just for our men and women out in the Gulf but for their brave and courageous families who sit and wait at home for news from the front. These are very trying times.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the House should be kept as well informed as is the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That is understandable. I shall deal with a few of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. First, he asked about the definition of "air supremacy" as did the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. We are now free to use air power to isolate the Iraqi forces, cutting off the supply routes to the occupying forces in Kuwait and further reducing Saddam Hussein's ability to fight on. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the mysterious event, as he called it, of approximately 100 Iraqi aircraft moving to Iran. It is indeed a mysterious event. There has been much speculation on this matter. It would not be right or wise of me to attempt to speculate further. I think as events unfold the intent will become clear.
Reference was made to the fitting of nuclear warheads on Scud missiles and to nuclear reactors. We very much hope that these have been put out of action, but one can never be sure in the circumstances. It is our fervent hope that that is the case. I refer to the recent attack on Khafji. It is very difficult to interpret the reason for the Iraqi advance. Again, we shall have to allow events to unfold in order to discover the reasoning behind it. The noble Lord also raised a very important point regarding the situation of the prisoners of war. I can tell the noble Lord and your Lordships' House that we are putting every possible pressure on the ICRC to give us the names of the prisoners. We are taking measures to find out whether we can do that ourselves. It is a very difficult matter which I realise is of interest to your Lordships and those at home who sit and wait.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised a number of points. For reasons of security I cannot go into the subject of the Skua missiles except to say that there has been a very notable achievement by the Royal Navy. The noble Lord also asked about the B52s and why they are at Fairford. The other airfields capable of providing the logistic and ammunition support required by the B52s operating in the Gulf already have their full quota of aircraft. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about our war aims. I shall repeat firmly what I said last week:
"the objective shared with the United Nations, the United States, our European friends and allies and most Arab states, is to secure unconditional Iraqi withdrawal, the restoration of Kuwait's sovereignty and independence and the restoration of its legitimate government".—[Official Report, 21/1/91; col. 68.]
4.13 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I feel that a brief word from these Benches will be appropriate. The General Synod has been meeting in London during the past two days. We have spent much time in prayer for all those involved in the Gulf war. I thought
810
that your Lordships' House would like to know that. We felt at this time that statements from Churches are not particularly useful, but that there should be continuing prayer for those at the political level and in the field who have to make extremely difficult decisions. We felt that there should be prayer for our forces exposed to danger and for anxious families. We considered that to be the best contribution that we could make. I pledge the continuing support of the Churches in trying to work for a just and peaceful settlement of the conflict by that means. At the same time I report encouragingly that there have been many contacts over the past few weeks between Christians and Moslems in this country in an endeavour to defuse some of the possible community consequences in our own land.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the warm support from the most reverend Primate. As he rightly said, in this country prayer has always helped the hearts of many—those who are in the Gulf and others who are here. I am sure that your Lordships agree with his warm sentiments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend give any information about the attempts to deal with the disastrous oil slick?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, much is happening and has happened in regard to that disastrous oil slick. The right way of expressing our disgust is to say that the release of the oil was pure environmental terrorism. The measures to reduce the impact and to protect the Saudi desalination plants are in hand. The United Kingdom is participating.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure that the thoughts and feelings of every Member of this House are with our fellow citizens and those of every other country involved in the Gulf, and with their families. We are all hoping and working for their return to their homes. In that connection, I wish to press the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. Do the British Government agree with the agreement reached between the Secretary of State of the United States and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union in stating categorically that if Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis withdraw from Kuwait hostilities will be brought to an end at that moment?
There is another question which is not necessarily linked or associated with that point. Do the Government also agree that once hostilities are ended an international peace conference will be organised which will deal with all the problems of this region including those of Israel and the Palestinians? Is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government as well as that of the United States and the Soviet Union?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for the thoughtful sentiments that he expressed concerning servicemen in the Gulf and their families back home. As I have already said, our objective is to secure unconditional Iraqi withdrawal and the restoration of Kuwait's sovereignty and independence. It is not possible for

811
me to go further than that. Circumstances may change in the future; but that is how the situation stands at the moment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the loss of the Tornados is in any way due to engine or airframe failure?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think it is too early to give the precise reason. However, the crews have acted in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances by flying at very low heights and at very fast speeds. I can only thank God that there have not been higher casualties.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, has the noble Earl any information as to whether the Iraqi Red Crescent organisation still exists and, if it does, whether it is able to co-operate in any way with the International Committee of the Red Cross concerning the prisoners of war?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my understanding is that the Red Crescent organisation still exists. If I am incorrect on that matter I shall let the noble Baroness know immediately after the completion of this Statement.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, no doubt the forces of our American allies will be uplifted by the speech made recently by their President. It was a formal but eloquent speech. Although they will not need it, would it be possible for a message to be sent from our Parliament to our servicemen and women in the Gulf so that they will know that they are very much in our thoughts and minds?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a noble gesture. I shall make sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is made aware of it.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question relating to the media coverage of the Gulf war. Do the Government feel that it is desirable and right that interviews should be conducted with individual servicemen in the front line and that those interviews should identify the serviceman concerned? Indeed, sometimes pictures are shown of them being interviewed. Would it not be better if such interviews, when desirable, were anonymous?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend makes a reasonable point. However, I think the House will agree that the interviews we have seen so far on television have been conducted in a truly supreme and superb manner. That they have given us huge confidence at home is due to the manner in which they have been conducted.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Earl said that the costs of the war to date were about £4 million per day. Yet I was watching a television programme this lunchtime in which a woman estimated that the costs of the war over the next three months could be as much as £5 billion. I have worked out that at more than £4 million a day the cost over
812
three months will be £364 million. There is an enormous discrepancy between what the noble Earl has just told us and what is being fed to the general public. If figures of that kind—£5 billion over the next three months—are perpetually put over could this not undermine public support for our forces?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, to make any kind of estimate of the eventual cost of the war is a very dangerous and unwise thing to do. Obviously we hope that the cost will be as small as possible, that the casualties will be as small as possible and that the time spent out there will be as short as possible. I repeat what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently: our forces will not be cash limited; they must have whatever is necessary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Earl has not dealt with my question. I perfectly understand what he is saying—we cannot possibly know the cost—and it is quite right that our forces should not be cash limited. But some in the media are telling millions of British people that the war will cost them £5 billion. The Government should make some representation about that if they believe that such reports are exaggerated.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand perfectly what the noble Lord says. Anything put over in the media in that way is high speculation. As I have already said, the overall costs to date are £1.25 billion, and at the moment the costs per day are in the region of £4 million.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it was disappointing to hear the stonewalling of the noble Earl on what is surely a reasonable request. An international agreement has been reached by the United States and the Soviet Union. It contains certain specifics. As an international agreement it is surely reasonable to ask our Government whether they adhere to it and approve of it. Surely the noble Earl can and should tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government adhere to the agreement made two days ago by the United States Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary of the Soviet Union. The agreement was in specific terms. Quite apart from their previously declared aims, do the British Government approve of the agreement reached by two of our allies?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot be more specific about the stance of the British Government in these circumstances. We have already said that we look forward to the possibility of an international peace conference at the end of the war.

Divorce: Law Commission Report
4.25 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who graces the Woolsack has, as one would expect of him, given a most lucid account of the law as it stands and of the recommendations of the Law Commission. He has adopted, again as one would

813
expect, a listening attitude. We are dealing today with a very serious national social problem. If there is a wholesale breakdown of marriage in our country it is a serious threat to the fabric of our society which is founded on the institution of marriage and the concept of the family. As the noble and learned Lord said, we are also dealing with a matter which is a grave threat to the mental, physical, educational and indeed financial future of our children.
One gets an idea of the scope of the problem if one looks at some general statistics in regard to the very matters we are discussing. If the current trends continue, more than one-third of new marriages will end in divorce. That means that around 3 million people will have broken marriages in the decade we have just entered. Half of the divorces come from marriages which have lasted less than 10 years. Fifty-six per cent. of the divorces in 1987 involved children under 16. The majority of those involved children under the age of 10. On present trends that means that one child in five can expect the divorce of his parents before he is 16 years old. So when your Lordships' views are asked on matters that affect divorce, conciliation and the children of divorced couples, you are considering a matter of immense importance socially to our nation.
The first reaction to those figures must be to ask whether we need some counselling and education in regard to marriage and not just after marriage and when the marriage looks as though it is breaking down. Against figures like these, do we not need to consider very carefully whether we are doing enough in our schools, in our propaganda and in our national education of youngsters after they leave school and before they enter into matrimony to encourage them to talk about the responsibilities of marriage? Marriage is not just a honeymoon and romance. It has its problems and the old adage of give and take is a very necessary constituent of marriage bondage—in using that word I do not mean it at all offensively to the institution of marriage.
There is criticism in the report, and rightly so, of our present divorce law. The noble and learned Lord dealt with the constituent factors which enable people at present to go to our courts and obtain a divorce, whether it be a "quickie" as it is sometimes called or a defended divorce.
The criticisms expressed in the report, with which your Lordships may agree, appear under five headings. The first is that our present law is confusing and misleading and often downright dishonest. The reasoning behind that finding is, as every practitioner knows, that the real breakdown of the marriage and the reason for it seldom appears truthfully in the divorce petition. The lawyer states upon what grounds the divorce can be obtained and then takes instructions to see whether the facts which are given lend themselves to any one of those grounds. The lawyer cannot investigate whether the parties have actually been living separate and apart for two years. Moreover, he cannot really investigate whether there
814
is a genuine confession by the other spouse of adultery. Such grounds for divorce are often grossly deceptive.
The second objection to our present system of law is that it is discriminating and unjust. I know full well, as does everyone who has practised divorce law, that if you have a wealthy client and you talk to him about living separate and apart, he does not experience much difficulty in acquiring another residence. However, if you have a poor client, the difficulty of "living apart", as our law defines it, is very real. If a client who happens to be a council tenant wishes to obtain a separate residence from the council, he will find that it will insist upon a court order, which is an ouster order or an order for possession of some kind, before granting him a separate residence.
Thirdly, the report states that the present law distorts the couple's bargaining position. That is absolutely true. Fourthly, there is what is possibly the chief ground, and one which was emphasised so correctly by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I refer to the objection that it provokes by an antagonistic and adversarial attitude, when alleging either unreasonable conduct, adultery or something of that nature, unnecessary hostility and bitterness which so often carries over to the children. Finally—and how truly is this objection brought forward in the report—the present law does nothing to try to save the marriage.
Before we consider the reform of our law, perhaps I may draw the attention of your Lordships and especially the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to what happens at present in conciliation in regard to the children. I do so with a plea that the facilities and the atmosphere be altered as soon as possible, regardless of whether such reforms ever find their way on to the statute book. I say nothing to impugn the kindness and the patience of our registrars and court officials. At present in the Family Division, if there is a child case in regard to access and all the matters which affect children and parents so vitally, one makes an application which is heard before the registrar. At that point the registrar urges conciliation. It is a convention that the application hearing lasts no more than half an hour during which time the registrar in good faith tries to see whether there is a chance of conciliation. If the parties do not have an agreed order, they are ushered into a corridor of the court where a welfare officer is waiting to offer help.
The corridors of a court are not the proper places in which such matters should be considered. Moreover, if, as is so often the case, there happens to be a child present and a vacant room is available, he or she is put into a room alone. Although the child is usually visited by the welfare officer, there are no toys or comics in that room. If there is agreement at the end of the "corridor procedure", the parties go back to the registrar. The pressure in those circumstances on a mother to agree to such an order can be pretty terrific. On the other hand, if no agreement is reached, the parties go back to the registrar and arrangements are made for the matter to be heard by a judge.

815
If that is the conciliation procedure designed to try to reach an agreed order in respect of the children, I believe that your Lordships will feel that such facilities—I use the word "facilities" as an understatement—are scarcely adequate or suitable. I ask the noble and learned Lord to inquire into such procedures. If he should find that what I say is correct, perhaps he will see whether something can be done to improve the system.
I turn now to the sort of considerations which your Lordships may think we ought to have in mind when discussing the report. The first—apart from the welfare of the children, which we obviously have in mind—is not to make divorce too easy. There is a great temptation among young people to give up when faced with the practicalities and problems of living together and when they find that the romance of marriage wears off a little, or sometimes quite considerably. Let us not make divorce too easy. On the other hand, I do not ask that it should be made too hard. As the noble and learned Lord said, if you make divorce too difficult it will not, in the short or medium term, mean that you have made marriages more happy or that you have stopped the breakdown of a marriage.
The second factor which we should bear in mind is the possibility of saving the marriage. The third must obviously be to try to take the bitterness out of matrimonial disputes, if only for the sake of the children. It is in that spirit that we should examine the main recommendation of the report which, as we have been told, calls for a process over time, allowing some 12 months for counselling, consultation and mediation.
In my view—I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree—we must not take for granted the fact that we can translate words into an Act; that is, if ever we adopt the suggested Act which has been so usefully drafted as a Bill at the end of the report. We must ensure that we do not make ourselves responsible for words that mean nothing. It is wonderful to talk about a conciliation service, an advisory service, an advising service, a counselling service and so on. There are voluntary organisations dealing with this matter now and they will tell your Lordships that they are inadequately financed. They could do a lot more if only they were adequately financed.
If we are embarking upon a new era and if we are to pass an Act to carry out these recommendations, in safeguarding the children and trying to see that marriages are saved, we must have a conciliation and counselling service. I look to the noble and learned Lord, and I am sure he would not want to be responsible for this. We must not pass an Act of that kind without a firm assurance that there is the ability to find and train personnel and for them to have the proper facilities to enable them to carry out their duties. It is astonishing to ask: Have we not got enough financial burdens nationally and can we really deal adequately with the financial implications of the recommendations put forward in this report?
816
A very worthy organisation called Relate, which deals with family advice and counselling, has saved many marriages. I believe it is the largest organisation of its kind. It set up an independent inquiry to investigate these matters about which I will tell your Lordships. In the period 1987–88 central government spent over £3.5 million every day in social security payments to divorced and separated people, with other directly related costs. Local authorities spent over £70,000 every day in 1988 in child-care costs directly resulting from marriage breakdown. This represents, so the investigation found, over £10,000 on average for every divorce or separation where children are concerned.
Those figures take no account of the cost of juvenile crime; and we know perfectly well that crime-related costs owe a substantial amount in their computation to the results of broken marriages. They take no account of additional housing costs, of child guidance or of family therapy. Therefore in the light of those figures we may think that if we had an adequate counselling and conciliatory service, operating as recommended in the report, we would be indulging not only in human saving but in national finance saving as well.
I have only one comment to make before I conclude and that is on the recommendations themselves. Your Lordships may feel that my comment is not a material one, but I feel that it has some relevance and ought at least to be raised in this debate. As the noble and learned Lord said, the recommendation is—and this is mandatory—that there should be a period of at least 12 months between the statement that the marriage has broken down—he absolutely correctly left out the word "irretrievably"—and the actual divorce. To have that as a mandatory matter, with no exceptions at all, cannot in my respectful submission be right.
What about the cases where there is a conviction for child abuse? Must there be a wait of 12 months at least between the statement that a marriage has broken down because of the conviction and the grant of a divorce? Must there be the same mandatory period where other relationships have been formed which, one hopes, to the party concerned are going to be of a permanent nature and a child is on the way? Must the child be born out of wedlock by statutory enactment because there is no discretion in a case of exceptional hardship? Must there be a further wait by mandate of at least 12 months where the parties have been living apart for a great number of years? I believe that is an important matter which ought to be looked at, with an exception being granted in a case of exceptional hardship where the court should be given discretion. Save for that matter, I believe there is much good in the recommendations of this report.
4.46 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, like all your Lordships, I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord for the succinct clarity of his exposition. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his vivid insight into some elements of the procedure that we are discussing.

817
A debate in your Lordships' House on the report The Ground for Divorce is a proper occasion for paying tribute to the Law Commission's contribution to the making of our family law during the past quarter of a century. One year after the setting up of the commission, described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, as the single most important event in this century in the field of law reform, a group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury published Putting Asunder: A Divorce Law for Contemporary Society. That group attacked the principle of the matrimonial offence and proposed breakdown of marriage in its place.
The Law Commission immediately seized the opportunity for reform thus offered by publishing a brilliant paper, The Reform of the Grounds of Divorce: The Field of Choice, which defined the objectives of a good divorce law as both to buttress the stability of marriage and, when a marriage has irretrievably broken down, to enable the empty legal shell to be destroyed with the maximum fairness and with the minimum bitterness, distress and humiliation.
From the early initiatives of the Law Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Scarman, as he then was, and his colleagues, notably in the field of family law, Professor L. C. B. Gower, came the Divorce Reform Act 1969 and the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 as the first design of a new divorce law. Nevertheless this legislation left the summary jurisdiction unchanged, with several matrimonial offences as grounds for complaint for the many maintenance orders which testified to surviving shells of dead marriages which had not been afforded decent burials.
In one sense the present report is an inquest on the law and practice which have stemmed from those reforms of 20 years ago. First, as has already been pointed out, fault was never abandoned, because we all know that the legislation would not have passed if it had been. As the commission put it,
"… the law tells couples that the only ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown, which apparently does not involve fault. But next it provides that this can only be shown by one of five 'facts', three of which apparently do involve fault."
But worse still,
"… the present law pretends that the court is conducting an inquiry … when … it can do no such thing… Moreover, the system still allows, even encourages, the parties to lie, or at least to exaggerate, in order to get what they want. The bogus adultery cases of the past may have all but disappeared, but their modern equivalents are the 'flimsy' behaviour petition or the pretence that the parties have been living apart for two years. In that 'wider field which includes considerations of truth, the sacredness of oaths and the integrity of professional practice' the present law is just as objectionable as the old".
What the commission describes as a "formidable case for reform" is reinforced by evidence that the present system is discriminating and unjust, provoking unnecessary hostility and bitterness, that it does nothing to save marriages and often makes matters far worse for children. The case for reform is elegantly and fully documented and presented with all the authority of the early Law Commission reports: it is overwhelming and accepted as such on these Benches.
We note, too, that the commission was at pains to obtain information about its proposals from a
818
commissioned survey of the attitudes of the general public as well as sounding opinion extensively among those working in the family justice system.
Behind the criticisms of technical law and procedure lie the many long-run social changes, the cumulative effects of which we are now experiencing to their full extent. Chief among them are transformations in the social status and economic position of wives. One hundred years ago, when mothers said to daughters about to marry, "You are making your bed and will have to lie in it", they spoke the exact truth. Most wives were subject then to religious, legal and economic restraints which prevented escape from marriage. Two world wars broke many marriages and introduced wives to the labour market, so that today most wives spend the minority of their lives discharging the duties of motherhood and the larger part as workers outside the home with independent earnings.
Abundant evidence testifies to the methods by which families have adapted to this development. Married women tend to withdraw from the labour force to have babies and to rear them when they are infants: they take part-time work when their children go to school; and many go back to work full-time when their youngest child has reached school-leaving age. Seventy per cent. of mothers with dependent children work full-time. Eighty-two per cent. of childless women under the age of 30 are working full-time, 7 per cent. of mothers whose youngest child is under five are working full-time and 20 per cent. are working part-time. When the children have reached the age group 11–15, more than three-quarters of their mothers are working. Thus the care of children is a paramount consideration for most mothers when deciding the timing and form of their employment. That is why most women in the labour market are married women whose children are nearly grown up.
Wives have legal equality with their husbands in all the main areas of family law, and the legal aid scheme opened access to the divorce court in the 1950s, since sustained by the more recent introduction of "do-it-yourself' divorce by the noble and learned Lord's department in order to reduce the costs falling upon the Treasury.
Changes during this century in the sex ratio, in the proportion of the population marrying, in the age at marriage, in the compression of child bearing into a narrow span of years and in the expectation of life have greatly increased the proportion of the population marrying, as well as the duration of marriages. Till death us do part now means on average 45 years, almost twice what it was in late Victorian days. So that today the cement of marriage is as strong or as weak as the affection and loyalty of the spouses and it is a matter of choice.
There were some quarter-of-a-million marriages between spinsters and bachelors last year, accounting for around two-thirds of all marriages. No one suggests that they will cleave to their spouses till death parts them. Marriage in this society has become a romantic lottery and, as John Stuart Mill observed,

819
"whoever is in a state of mind to calculate chances calmly and value them correctly is not at all likely to purchase a ticket. Those who marry after taking great pains about the matter, generally do but buy their disappointment dearer."
The massive increase in divorce during the last 40 years has been a recurring theme of many commentators' anxieties about the state of society. The rate at which marriages collapse varies considerably according to the duration of marriage, age of the spouses on marriage and their marital status before marriage. Further, a higher proportion of divorced husbands and wives will marry again, one-third of them within two-and-a-half years. Whatever may be the motives for divorce, it appears that divorced persons do not seek to escape from marriage.
Despite the retreat from the ideal of monogamous marriage, more than three-quarters of those living in private households in Great Britain in 1987 were in families headed by a married couple. Indeed some 44 per cent. of all people in such households lived in traditional family groups, consisting of a married couple with dependent children.
The existence of the family—and this is a fundamental point which we must recognise in the course of assessing the effects of these social changes—does not depend upon the law which is powerless to create, though it can regulate, the expression of the deep-rooted conjugal and parental sentiments on which the institution rests. Moreover, marriage and its informal substitutes are rooted in the family, and not the family in marriage. I do not believe that the retention of fault in divorce offers the slightest assistance to the casualties of broken homes or to the prevention of family breakdown.
Nevertheless, we must note the recent startling increase in cohabitation demonstrated by Mr. John Haskey in Population Trends in 1989. He estimated from the general household survey that there were about 900,000 cohabiting couples with some 400,000 dependent children. There are surprisingly high rates of cohabitation in certain age groups. If such trends persist it will not be long before your Lordships are debating a new Law Commission report on a regime for cohabitation.
All the evidence suggests that changes in the law of the grounds for divorce are unlikely to affect the rate at which marriages actually collapse. Abundant survey data for the past 40 years demonstrate the consequences of family breakdown to be poverty and seriously disadvantaged children in horrifyingly large numbers, as the noble and learned Lord stressed in his opening speech. It is a bitter irony that men in the lowest income groups experience more than twice the rate of divorce of men in the upper income brackets.
One reality behind the present debate on maintenance is that marriages in which husbands have the lowest incomes undergo the highest rate of breakdown. This type of commentary could be extended at great length, but I have said enough to show that considerable social concerns and developments are raised by, and cannot be separated from, a consideration of the Law Commission's report on The Ground for Divorce. The commission describes divorce
820
not as a final product but part of a massive transition for the parties and their children. Undue concentration upon the technical law may distract attention from the social means which alone can mitigate the sufferings of children who are the chief casualties of family breakdown.
These have been examined by Professor Douglas Hooper and Mr. Mervyn Murch of the Socio-Legal Centre for Family Studies at the University of Bristol as part of a most valuable programme of research. The centre, under Mr. Murch, has been responsible over many years for a series of studies of such problems. The authors of the new report point to defects in the handling of cases which cannot be cured by changing the ground of divorce and which indeed obstruct a main aim of the commission; namely, that opportunities and encouragement to resolve matters amicably should be built into the system when appropriate.
If we are to have a divorce over time, emphasising the interests of children and the importance of conciliation and mediation, the whole range of relevant welfare services must be deployed and integrated. But the new research concludes:
"Whether eventually the family justice system is organised around a unified system of local family courts or upon the existing tiered but separately administered court structure, all those who have assisted this inquiry agree that in the interests of children and families the [present] system should be made more coherent and efficient … Although government is doing much in relation to the implementation of the Children Act, there are still serious structural obstacles. [Departments] remain divided at a ministerial level, at a local level, and in respect to the organisation of court welfare services. Every effort should be made to eliminate overlapping duplicated responsibilities, and to reduce the number of organisations involved. This is because structural boundaries reinforce the conceptual boundaries in the mind. These hinder the development of mutual cross-disciplinary understanding and collaboration which is so vital in this field. Administratively they also result in family justice matters being seen as marginal, and given low priority".
I regret this administrative fragmentation, which in itself would have been considerably mitigated if governments had supported the establishment of a unified family court, as recommended by the Committee on One-Parent Families. We have not got a unified family court, but it is essential that we have unified and integrated welfare services if the perils to which the noble and learned Lord referred in his opening speech are to be tackled.
5.7 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to start with an apology. The Statement on the Gulf and the unexpected length of the list of speakers have put me in a difficulty and it may be that I shall have to leave before this debate is concluded. I apologise to your Lordships' House for that.
I start by saying how much I agreed with the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. In fact, I agreed with every word of it except the last section where it seemed to me that his proposals about, on occasion, shortening the one-year process would in time run the risk of opening a door through which all sorts of unexpected cases would start walking into court.

821
I welcome this report, which I believe is moving in the right direction, and I endorse the claim that its aim is to make divorce law not harder or easier but better, and particularly better for children. The Church of England has not yet had an opportunity to express its mind on this latest report, but as the noble Lord who has just spoken said it is noteworthy that the basic thinking behind the report is an extension of the 1967 report Putting Asunder, for which Archbishop Michael Ramsay was, in the end, responsible. Since then it is clear that subsequent representations by our Church of England Board for Social Responsibility have been generally supportive of the Law Commission's thinking in this direction.
Although I speak in this debate as an individual I believe that what I want to say reflects the broad centre of Church opinion; and if it does not the right reverend Prelates on the Bench behind me will soon let me know.
Lord Molloy: So will we.
The Archbishop of York: Touché. Christians are always in a dilemma over divorce.
Within our Churches we have our own marriage disciplines but we recognise, as did Putting Asunder, that secular legislation cannot be expected fully to express Christian ideals. It is important, though, that the concept of marriage enshrined in the law should not depart so far from Christian ideals that there would in effect be two types of marriage in which Church and state would have to go their separate ways. I do not believe that the proposals before us fall into that trap, but they will need careful exposition. The principles will need careful safeguarding in the legislation, should it come about, if an unbridgeable gap between different concepts of marriage is not to be opened.
Some of the religious objections have already centred, and will centre, around the removal of fault. I find the arguments against any return to fault as a ground for divorce convincing. What they do not meet satisfactorily, though, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognised in his opening speech, is the deep sense of injustice often felt in the course of the divorce, particularly when one of the parties may suddenly and unexpectedly have been abandoned and is then expected to accept it as a fait accompli without any sense of justice being done.
I grant that the processes of mediation and conciliation may help to alleviate this sense of injustice by helping people to accept faults on both sides. However, this may not happen. I suspect that it will not happen when one party is determined to break a marriage against the wishes of the other.
There is a recognition of this in paragraph 3.19 of the report which suggests that an element of fault may still play its part in the process of deciding how to divide the property and what to do about the children. However, the paragraph makes it clear that the reference to fault is only to be made in what it calls "exceptional cases". I doubt whether it is wise to confine it to exceptional cases. It all depends on how exceptional "exceptional" is. It seems to me that the moral flavour of the process may depend quite heavily
822
on where that line is drawn. If any legislation is brought forward I hope that it will be given careful consideration.
The second religious objection which we have heard already is the claim that what is proposed is in effect "divorce by consent". This phrase is frequently used in arguments without defining precisely what it means. A paragraph from the earlier report, Putting Asunder, is worth repeating:
"The fatal defect of the consensual principle is not that it requires both parties to agree in wanting divorce (that spouses do agree on this not infrequently is a fact that a realistic law needs to take into account) but that it subjects marriage absolutely to the joint will of the parties, so making it in essence a private contract. Since it gives the court, as representing the community, no effectual part in divorce, it virtually repudiates the community's interest in the stability of marriage. Moreover, if the covenant that initiates marriage is to be revocable by mutual consent, its intention cannot meaningfully be called 'lifelong': provision for divorce can be reconciled with a lifelong intention only if divorce is subject to an authority that is independent of the will of the parties. Dissolution of marriage ought always to require a real exercise of judgment by the court, acting on the community's behalf".
That is well said and needs repeating. It seems to me quite fundamental and in the light of it I believe that the report can still be said to preserve the intention of lifelong marriage.
However, there still needs to be discussion about precisely what kind of judgment under the new proposals the court could be said to exercise. If we look at the criteria set out in paragraph 5.78 of the report—the criteria on which it is proposed that the court will make its judgment about the admissibility of divorce or separation—we see that those are all purely formal criteria. They are in no way dependent, so far as I can see, on what may or may not have been achieved during the process of time in terms of making a satisfactory settlement.
There are two points about that which alarm me. The first is the provision in paragraph 5.54 of the report that the court may make final orders relating to children, spouses and property before the completion of the process—in other words, before the year has elapsed. I can understand the reasons for that, particularly the necessity to settle the care of children as early as possible, and I note that such final orders can, according to the proposals, be rescinded, but the effect of making and ratifying all these decisions at perhaps a quite early stage in the process would surely be to make the final judgment of the court even more of a formality and thus, in time, reduce the significance of the process.
In other words, this provision could tip the whole procedure further in the direction of divorce by consent. Would it not be possible to have some system of temporary orders when these are needed in particular cases, which could then be made permanent when the divorce is finally granted?
My second cause for alarm is that a purely formal judgment at the final stage is scarcely a judgment at all. I hope that more emphasis will be given to the suggestion which appears in the report in paragraph 5.56, and the following paragraphs, which would allow the court to extend the period of waiting when

823
a satisfactory settlement has not been reached by the two parties. I believe that the existence of such a possibility as more than a very exceptional occurrence, as the report suggests, would strengthen the role of the court in a helpful way and allay some of the fears of those who would regard this final judgment as no more than a rubber stamp.
I wish to say a few words about conciliation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I was delighted with what he said and I must declare my interest as one of the two patrons of the National Family Conciliation Council. The other patron is the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who will be speaking next.
I welcome the prominence given both to reconciliation and to conciliation in the report. I wish to stress what has already been said; that the effectiveness and acceptability of the services provided will be crucial to the implementation of the principles of the report. The worst possible result would be to initiate divorce by a process in time and then empty the process of any but a formal content by failing to provide proper reconciliation and conciliation services.
I believe that to be acceptable the services need to be voluntary. We cannot force them on people. They must be seen to be independent of the courts. They must be voluntary to be acceptable, but to be effective they must have proper funding. Here I can only speak of the National Family Conciliation Council which is in the process of developing a nationwide network of local agencies. However, to do so it has had to depend entirely on voluntary giving and fees. The result is that a huge and unnecessary amount of energy has been spent on fund raising by skilled people. The central organisation of that council is absurdly fragile when one considers the weight it has to bear. I believe that some core funding is essential if the council is to bear the weight envisaged in the future, or even for it to survive and grow in the present circumstances.
I repeat that I welcome these proposals provided that the content of the process can be strengthened in the ways that I have indicated. I am quoted in the report as saying:
"If a law is not easy to operate my experience is that the lawyers will find a way to make it easy to operate".
I am gloomily conscious of the fact that that premise is true. The legislation has to be framed in such a way that divorce cannot become a mere formality, otherwise we tip the balance too far in the direction of the couple themselves and away from the long-term interests of the community in maintaining that marriage is a social reality—I maintain it is also a spiritual reality—and not just a personal contract.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I too must apologise to the House as I cannot be present for the end of the debate. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I believe he knows of the appointment that I have.
I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his clear
824
explanation of the present law and of the recommended changes in the Law Commission Report The Ground for Divorce. I presume to speak in this debate as a former social worker with experience of child guidance clinic work. I am also a former children's officer and director of social services. In those roles I have dealt with cases of divorce in all sectors of society. I have dealt with the wealthy, the poor and those in the middle financial band. The cases involved conciliation work. As the most reverend Primate has said, that entails mediating between the divorcing parents on such matters as housing, finance, the education of the children, the terms of access and the adjustment of the children to the breakup of their parents' partnership.
In some cases the outcome of such discussions was reconciliation. However, in many cases the outcome was an agreement between both parents on the terms of the divorce. My remit extended to working in the courts. My training and experience leads me to accept the recommendations of the Law Commission's report on divorce which recommends removing the five faults provision and replacing it with the passage of time provision.
As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has said, it is a sad reflection on our society that there is such a high divorce rate. I wish it were otherwise. This is not the time or place to go into the possible reasons for the breakdown of marriages save to say that in many instances a crisis in human relationships develops. That may be due to emotional deprivation in childhood, social factors, factors of war or incompatibility of temperaments. Be that as it may, we must accept that a divorce that is withheld, delayed or obstructed does not save a marriage.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the rights of children are paramount as laid down in the Children Act 1989. For the sake of the children we must surely seek a divorce process which will harm them least. We must also seek a rearranged structure which involves the least hurt for their parents and on which they can build a future life which is without bitterness. That brings me to the grounds for divorce in relation to their effects on children. I wish to refer particularly to the five faults provision that the Law Commission wishes to remove.
A child's love for his parents is a golden nugget. A child identifies with his or her parents. If that child hears ill of the parents he loves and if a finger of blame is pointed at those parents, that child's image of himself is diminished. The child in turn can be emotionally hurt and damaged. Therefore divorces should be conducted in such a way that this does not happen.
A small girl came to me in tears because the children at her school had spoken disparagingly of her mother. The children had called her mother a whore. The girl asked me what that word meant. She said the children at school did not understand that she loved her mother and that her mother was good to her. The girl asked me why the children spoke about her mother in that way. She said the remarks made her feel bad. On another occasion a boy aged about 12 said to

825
me, "Miss, the children at school say that my father is unkind and wicked. He has never been unkind to me and I love him". He said that he felt damaged in some way by the remarks made about his father.
I submit that the process of trying to prove the fault in a divorce is damaging to the children. Divorce by passage of time, as recommended in the report, does not diminish the children to such a great extent. The children may be taken from the parent who in law has committed the fault when none of us can really know what goes on within a family and who is to blame for the breakup.
Representations have been made to me—I expect other noble Lords have received similar approaches—that if one takes away the fault procedure from the process of divorce, one diminishes the moral fibre of society. A notable moral philosopher and theologian, the Reverend Canon Dunstan, wrote:
"What does this mean in terms of Christian morality? Where in the teaching of Jesus are we taught to blame others to our own justification or advantage? In terms of strict gospel morality the fault basis of divorce can have no standing at all".
A marriage is a deeply personal experience. In the deep recesses of the spirit it is not easy for any of us to judge where the fault lies when a breakdown occurs. The one perpetrating the fault could have been aggravated and forced by the other partner to behave unreasonably. I say:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged".
In a divorce there should be a duty to minimise bitterness and harm to both the parents and the children. Therefore, in my view, divorce by passage of time offers the wisest way to reconstruct broken relationships in such a way that the children of separating partners have the opportunity to rebuild their lives and to have a positive future with as little hurt and bitterness as possible.
Much can be done in that year: settling the questions of the custody of the children, access, housing and maintenance. As I see the process, parents will register the divorce. They will be told that within a year they can have the divorce if they have come to understand each other and to understand the difficulties and if they have reached agreement regarding the children, access, money and housing.
They should not be forced to conciliation, but the conciliation service offers great help to parents. I support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in calling for Government support for a good conciliation service throughout the country. As the most reverend Primate said, we are both patrons of the National Family Conciliation Service and Council. I believe that we think alike on that matter.
After conciliation, the parents may opt for a divorce. Unfortunately, I shall not be present to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. However, I believe that he may say that we should have family courts and that parents cannot be assessed except on the basis of fault. I may be wrong, and I shall read the report of his speech in Hansard. I would prefer that we proceed on the basis of the document Children Come First which recommends that there should be a
826
formula determining how much parents should pay for the upkeep of their children and that maintenance should be assessed on the basis of that formula.
If divorce must come about—and we cannot force people not to divorce—we should seriously consider adopting the recommendations of the commission.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, on Monday of this week I received representations from a religious organisation. I said then that I had no intention of speaking in this debate. However, I then received further representations from an organisation called Families Need Fathers. That persuaded me that I should at least listen to the debate and perhaps say a few words on the subject.
Having heard the previous distinguished speeches I fear that anything that I have to say may be repetitive and perhaps inadequate. I shall say it, nevertheless.
I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for putting forward the report in a way that those of us who are laymen in these matters can understand. The report will undoubtedly assist in taking some of the bitterness out of divorce. I am glad that there will be some delay in implementing the proposals contained in the report because I believe that there are other matters which need to be attended to. I shall refer to those later.
I was also impressed by my noble friend Lord Mishcon when he referred to conciliation and counselling. I agree with him that there is a need for counselling not only after marriage but before marriage. Anybody who has been through a divorce knows that divorce is a great trauma. It is an experience which wounds. Although wounds may heal over a period of time it is almost inevitable that the scars will remain throughout the lifetime of the person who has divorced. The bitterness also remains and taints a person's life until the end of his or her life.
It is very important that all of us in society—particularly parents—should counsel our children before they embark upon marriage. As my noble friend said, marriage is not a perpetual honeymoon. It involves great responsibilities. It involves the creation of children and the rearing of children. That is a serious matter for individuals and for society. The family is the basis of the nation. Let us make no mistake about that. The family unit is the very fundamental of the nation. If the family is broken up and if the concept of the family does not persist the nation itself will suffer.
The attitude of society towards personal relationships and marriage has changed over the years. I believe that it has changed for the worse. People are allowed to embark upon marriage too easily. I believe that the media have much to answer for in the matter of personal relationships and of sexual relationships. All too often the media portray sexual relationships as about not procreation but recreation. They have put the cart before the horse. When young people embark upon marriage it is essential that they understand that although the marriage may not be for life they ought

827
to try to make it for life and not enter into it with the idea that if it does not work divorce will be relatively easy.
As my noble friend and other speakers have said, it is most important that we ensure that resources are available for conciliation and counselling services. Not only should financial resources be available, but the people who undertake such work should be trained for the work and also fitted for the work. Noble Lords will understand exactly what I mean by that. Simple training will not enable proper conciliation and counselling to be given. Often it needs experience. People with experience and training will be invaluable in providing that service.
I should like to conclude on one very important point which I believe has to be addressed in the matter of divorce; namely, the adversarial nature of divorce where in fact the solicitors of the parties do not try to conciliate or do the best for both parties and the children, because that is not the system. They try to do the best for their client. That often means trying to get the most money for their client or obtaining the custody of the child or children of the marriage with the least possible access for the person who does not have custody. That matter must be addressed. We must try to eliminate the adversarial nature of the system.
Also, during proceedings and consultations the solicitor will do his best for his client in the financial sense. That is his job. No one criticises solicitors for that. Under the present system that is what solicitors are expected to do. Unfortunately, in the English system anyway, no proper guidance seems to be given to the courts on the matter of how property should be shared. I understand that a different situation pertains in Scotland. In 1985 the Family Law (Scotland) Act came into force. It gives guidance as to how property should be shared. For example, account is taken of the fact that people might have had property before they were married and that there is family inheritance which perhaps should be passed to children. Account is also taken of property which has been accumulated by both parties. As so often is the case, matters in Scotland seem to be arranged better than in England and Wales.
It may well be that before decisions on grounds for divorce are finalised we should consider the question of financial disposal and sharing and perhaps bring to England the benefits that obtain in Scotland which, I understand, have been working very well for the past five years.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, at the impressive start of his impressive speech the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave some striking statistics. I wish to isolate only one of them; namely, that today one third of marriages break down. Moreover, as the noble Lord pointed out, that is a rising trend. The figures today are double those of 20 years ago. We should bear in mind that 20 years ago saw the coming into force of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 which is
828
now consolidated in the 1973 legislation. Obviously that Act was not the sole cause of the alarming trend. But that it would be a cause was predictable and indeed predicted by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham who was then the spokesman on home affairs in the other place. It was also predicted by Sir Lionel Heald who was by his side during those debates.
In approaching this report one should bear in mind the hyping—the high pretensions that were made when that Act was under discussion. It was described as "a kiss and make up Bill". I venture to think that there has been altogether a high degree of complacency in the approach to this report and the attached Bill. I hope that I may be forgiven for saying that I thought that that was particularly marked in the speech of the most reverend Primate. It seems to me serious that this report has not faced the fact of the increase or what has caused it. Nor indeed has it distinguished the Divorce Reform Act of 20 years ago as one of the influences. That it has failed to do so seems to me to be a serious flaw in the report, but it is by no means the only one.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, marriage and the family are institutions of society. Marriage is the institution which gives rise to the institution of the family; and in our culture the family is the institution by which society ensures its survival. The family ideal is that marriage is a life-long relationship. The most reverend Primate claimed to discern recognition of that in the report. I myself fail to find even lip-service paid to it.
The life-long relationship has two principle aspects that concern us today, although there are others. In the first place there is a division of responsibility—a division of labour—between husband and wife. The wife necessarily incurs economic disadvantage by bearing children, suckling them and generally looking after them in their early years. All too often she has a part-time rather than a whole time job. Where there is a functional division of labour of that kind, there is a claim to share in the fruits of the labour and that is a life-long claim since the economic impairment of the wife is a life-long feature.
The other aspect is not purely economic. Bacon said, in a way which to us is perhaps distasteful and, as we might put it, male chauvinistic:
"Wives are young men's mistresses, companions for middle age, and old men's nurses".
I think that that could be equally put with the genders reversed, that being changed which has to be changed; so that the life-long relationship, the life-long element in a marriage, is not only economically fair but psychologically fulfilling. We endanger it at our peril. Again, that issue has not been considered by the Law Commission.
In Part II the commission has forcibly pointed out the grave disadvantages of the 1969 Act. It is now the 1973 Act. It pretends to something that it does not deliver; namely, irretrievable breakdown as the sole cause. While purporting to eschew fault it introduces two, perhaps three, grounds which embody the concept of fault and which are prerequisites to the

829
finding of breakdown of marriage. Having demolished the pretensions of the 1969 Act the Law Commission merely discards what my noble and learned friend calls the five facts. However, it goes back no further than the breakdown of marriage.
"Breakdown" was very much in the air during the late 1960s. It was one of those extraordinary gales of intellectual force that sometimes sweep through a society. A similar but more dangerous gale appeared in the late 1920s; namely, the gale of pacificism. It is true that it was soon reversed when the true nature of Hitler's danger was perceived. However, during the late 1960s breakdown as the ground for divorce was all in the air. The Church of England's pamphlet, Putting Asunder, relied on breakdown as the sole ground. However, it went on to say that each case must be fundamentally investigated to ensure that there is true breakdown. As the Law Commission pointed out in The Field of Choice, that was quite impracticable.
In considering the speeches that are made in support of the report one must bear in mind the attitude of the Church of England at that time. Putting Asunder had virtually crippled the principle on which the Church had been depending as regards its view of marriage for a long time; indeed, until Archbishop Fisher gave evidence to the Royal Commission in the 1950s. The evidence was printed as being the view of the Church. Putting Asunder was quite at variance with that. Not only was the principle crippled but willpower in facing the 1969 Act was also impaired. Therefore, the Church offered no real critique to the 1969 Act. I do not know whether it agrees with the strictures that are now passed on it by the Law Commission. Again, that is a matter that has been insufficiently considered in the report.
What are the implications of breakdown? Obviously it encompasses divorce by consent because if both parties say that the marriage has broken down who is to gainsay them? But breakdown goes further. It allows the divorce by one party against the will and the wish of the other party who may have substantially performed her matrimonial obligations. I wish to quote a case which I had to try. It was the case of Qureshi and appears in the Law Reports. It concerned a Pakistani marriage, the parties being domiciled in Pakistan. By general Islamic law a divorce can take place at the suit of the husband by his simply pronouncing the talaq, "I divorce you", three times. However, the Pakistan legislature had imposed a stay, a stop; a pause for reflection and consideration, to adopt the words of this report. The parties had to go before a counsellor to see whether the marriage was irretrievable. In this case, the parties being in England, they went before someone from the Chancery of the Pakistan High Commission. The gentleman thought that the marriage was savable; the wife wished to be reconciled. In fact, the marriage could not be saved because the husband was adamant that he would not return to his wife whatever was said.
I cannot see that any mediation can do anything to help in such a situation. The husband, for instance, can say, "You may think that my wife is a charming woman but I am the one who is married to her. I am
830
not going back". For good measure he may add, "What is more, there is someone I prefer". After all, we must face the fact that divorce is a licence to live apart coupled with a licence to remarry. Again, that is not considered by the report. It does not consider that breakdown as the sole ground, particularly as it is delayed only for a year's interval for consideration and reflection, allows the repudiation of a substantially innocent spouse by the spouse who is substantially at fault in the marriage.
I do not apologise for using those terms. There was a silly catchphrase at the time of the 1969 Act; "There is no black and white in marriage, only degrees of grey". Humanity being fallen, I do not doubt that in general there is no white but that does not mean that there is no distinction between off-white and charcoal. I can say from all my experience that it is absolutely impossible to deal fairly with financial and property matters in general without considering a fault in some measure.
Finally, I turn to the subject in respect of which the report is most at fault; namely, children. The Government's main paper is entitled Children Come First. That was also proclaimed by the Children Act passed two Sessions ago. But do they come first here? Do we not rather invite the parties to please themselves as to the future of their marriage and then, as the report states, look round to see what one can do to mitigate—not obviate —the harm that is liable to be caused to the children? I need not expatiate upon that harm because it was graphically and truly described by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in his opening speech. The damage is likely to be serious and to last long beyond childhood.
Therefore, should not the Law Commission at least have considered whether divorce should be permitted at all where there are children under the age of 16? After all, in these days of general contraceptive measures, both natural and mechanical, the birth of a child is generally an advertent and intended act. On the birth of a child parents take on new obligations. They are no longer entitled to consider only themselves or each other. They have now a child who comes first in the view of the Government. If divorce is so damaging to young children, should it not at any rate be examined—as it was not—whether divorce should be available at all where there are young children?
The final matter that I wish to mention was touched on by the most reverend Primate. How far is society really entitled to interfere in matters such as marriage which are founded on contract? He is right when he says that society is entitled to do so because marriage is an institution of society. Indeed it is politic to do so where children are involved. However, is it politic to do so when the parties no longer have obligations to children? Would it not be reasonable in that case to allow freedom of choice; in other words, divorce by consent which is the proposal by the Law Commission.
From that suggestion I should have excepted those for whom marriage is a sacrament, or is of the nature of a sacrament as in the case of the Church of

831
England. However, is it not arguable that those people should be allowed to contract a marriage which does not allow divorce? When that was suggested in about 1969, the proponents of the Bill, who were very anxious for easier divorce, said that that would involve first and second class marriage; in their view, a first class marriage being one where there is no divorce. Surely that is a curious concession. Why should people not be allowed to contract out of divorce at the time of marriage? Again, that has not been considered in this report.
I return to the point at which I started. One-third of marriages are now foundering and the proportion is rising. It does not take great powers of prophecy to prognosticate as to the effect of the Bill annexed to the report. I have not the slightest doubt that it would mean a further increase in divorce.
6.4 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I had not realised that I was to hear an important statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am very glad to have heard the statement of his intentions. They are very far-reaching, and I wish him good luck with them. It will be very difficult to achieve what he has in mind and what he has laid before us today.
I have read a recent report from the English commissioners and it is extremely impressive. I was particularly touched by the depth of humanity shown in that report. I do not understand what has happened in this country. However, there have been very far-reaching changes in this sphere in my lifetime. Perhaps I may give one example to illustrate that. One of the senior commanders in the armed forces divorced his wife. He resigned his office immediately. That may be a small matter but that would not happen today. That is a measure of the change of standards which are the essence of the problem which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has in mind. Those standards have drifted astray and we must put that right.
I found some strange figures on this matter. I do not know whether they are true because it is very difficult to obtain figures on this subject. I read that 72 per cent. of men asked thought that the present English law on divorce was right. That seems very strange. I saw another statistic that 51 per cent. of the men who become divorced are very sorry that that happened. I do not know whether those statistics are true. I do not live in the realms of statistics and do not know what they are all about. I wonder about the anxieties that the law is in some way forcing people to divorce. That has never been my experience of lawyers. They have always used every defence possible—not that I have ever sought divorce.
The essence of the matter is that opinion is changing. Perhaps I may take an example. The birds of the field learn how to make a nest. Without being discourteous, I do not believe that any noble Lords know how to make a nest because it is extremely complicated and detailed. How do the birds learn to do that? I do not know, but they do learn it. If one
832
becomes an engineer or a lawyer, one spends years learning how to to do that. That probably takes three or four years. However, no one is trained in marriage. That was the point which the noble and learned Lord made. No one attempts to ensure that the functions of the body and the other needs arising in marriage are understood. We do not attempt that. Should we not make some sort of arrangement? If you are an a actor, you take years to learn your profession. For a minister of religion, there is a long and exacting training. I know more about Scottish ministers than English ministers but that is by the way. Those matters are commonplace. Some sort of introduction should be put together so that it is known what marriage amounts to and what problems may arise. Some people are by nature open, and some are very selfish.
The essence of this matter—and it is not necessarily to do with divorce—is our standards. Do we maintain today anything like the level of standards which has existed previously? I agree that those standards were different. Some things were allowed which we do not allow, and some things were forbidden which we allow.
My noble and learned friend is dealing with a matter which will receive enormous response. We shall expect that action will be taken to make marriage fuller and nobler. I believe that a married man is held in greater dignity and is wiser than an unmarried or divorced man. I am sure that that is because of the richness of marriage. We are taught by our religious leaders about the sanctity of marriage. To many people that sanctity is natural, because how else would one treat someone whom one has offered to make one's wife? I wish the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor every good fortune with his proposals.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I rise at a stage in the debate when most of the fundamental points contained in the commission's report have been touched upon. However, there are some vital aspects of divorce procedure which have not been covered wholly by the report, and I hope to mention them later. We have been fortunate to hear superb speeches from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Mishcon, who set the scene for us. A number of matters that I did not understand, I understood more clearly after I had listened carefully to their speeches.
Divorce is a terrible social failure. It is an exaggeration of failures. Most lawyers agree that divorce is unfair to men. I have heard from many barristers and lawyers, who are divorce law specialists, that more often than not divorce is grossly unfair to men. I shall not go into details, but I can supply them if required. We have to consider the sharing of property when a marriage is over. According to knowledgeable specialists in the legal profession, that is also unfair to men. They seem to lose much more, and, what is worse, especially where children are not involved. That is an aspect of divorce that we must study.
The problem of people who marry late in life has not been mentioned. After three or four years they

833
may go through a divorce. Their lawyers again say that it is always the man who suffers. The little lady is the innocent one, while the man has to pay up. Much of what I have learnt has been the result of the superb reply I received from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to a question I asked. That reply was published by the press. It resulted in me receiving hundreds of letters. I am pleased that I received them, because they enabled me to understand a great deal. As a result, I shall be supporting the propositions being put forward.
In many cases after a five-year marriage many elderly men have had to transfer their entire old age pension to pay what the Americans call alimony and what we call maintenance. That is serious when one considers that a man has paid for his pension since he was 16 years of age. He reaches the age of 68 or 69 and has been drawing his pension for three or four years. It is then taken away from him. That is something we must consider.
The Law Commission's report is a timely and valuable response to the public's anxiety over the rate of divorce. It is an intelligent, deep searching endeavour to find a good divorce law. We cannot outlaw or abolish divorce, but we can try to find a good, fair and just divorce law. The report is a fundamental step in that direction. However, it fails to examine some of the distasteful activities that are carried on within the law by a minority of the legal profession, mainly the so-called specialist solicitors.
The proposal for a one-year cooling off period will not make the ending of marriage any easier but it will encourage civilised forgiveness, understanding and tolerance. Some aspects of the commission's report deal with those issues. It is a wonderful thing to be concerned about those matters. In some situations which seem to be impossible, a pause to consider what is involved, especially where there are children, may help to avoid divorce. What is wonderful about the report is that it concentrates upon that endeavour. It is not just talking about what is a fair or good divorce, it tries to bring about a situation where divorce can be avoided. The other point for which it deserves credit is that it puts the future of children high on the agenda and that is given proper consideration.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave a moving reply to my question. He said that one should show concern for husband and wife and uphold the sanctity of marriage. As I have said, that reply brought me hundreds of letters. It gave me some experience of many of the things that people go through during a divorce. The present system of accusation and counter-accusation means that any form of reconciliation is greatly reduced. The commission's report mentions that point. The present system seems to be saying that we should kill the marriage rather than seek to cure its faults. The Law Commission's proposition is better. It seeks to cure the faults rather than to kill the marriage. The Law Commission eschews the present procedure. People sometimes tell me that they have wanted to stop the divorce from proceeding but arguments in court bring up the bitterness all over again.
834
Organisations such as Dads Against Divorce feel that there is too much exaggeration in court and that it creates bitterness and gives reconciliation no chance. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Mishcon have said, there seem to be two categories of divorce. One is adultery, and the other is the quarrels and misunderstandings which lead to bitterness. Solicitors have to do the best they can for their clients. That is what they are paid for. They sometimes have to heap coals on the bitterness. The present system is barbaric. It should not exist in a civilised society. The Law Commission's report recognises that fact.
The many hours of discussion there have been with deeply sad divorced people compels one to fear that our land—bastion of freedom that it is—is marred by divorce court procedures. I am told that 30 per cent. of the men involved in divorces commit suicide. I have had those figures checked. I have spoken to responsible members of the legal profession involved in divorce law. Those figures are sad. A recent study revealed that a substantial proportion of divorced men and women wished that they had remained married to their former partners. The report backs up 100 per cent. the wisdom of the Law Commission's proposals.
The dispersal of property must also be studied seriously, especially in England. In Scotland there is a much fairer basis for the dispersal of property. I use my words with care, but the procedure is almost criminally unfair in England when it deals with the division of property between spouses. Part of the current procedure is redolent of authoritarianism. I am referring to Rule 77(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules 1977. A man can be served with a summons which merely states that he should come to court to show why he should not go to gaol. We do not do that to train robbers, city crooks, vandals or drunken drivers who kill. They do not have to put up with that form of legal threat. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Mishcon will study that aspect of the procedure. Out of the 90 letters that I have received from Dads Against Divorce, 73 mention that aspect of divorce. Those men have done nothing. They have never been accused of any crime. They are not like me: I was put on "jankers" so often in the Army that I could never forget it. Those are people who have done nothing. British law says, "Come here and tell us why you should not go to gaol". We do not say that to murderers or drunken drivers; but we say it to men involved in divorce. No matter what happens to this important report that kind of provision should be stopped forthwith.
There are other occasions when men are irritated when they appear before a judge for the first time in their lives. It may be that a solicitor has not supplied the other side with all the relevant material. One very well known and superb lawyer said to me, "There are instances in my experience, Lord Molloy, when I have had to stand by and watch an appalling exhibition of terror being imposed through harassment on a person simply because he cannot get on with his wife and is seeking a divorce". These matters have t o he looked at

835
very closely indeed. One has to underline the fact that the overwhelming majority of lawyers have experience of these things.
When a person goes to court, sometimes the judge will make a fifth-rate joke at that person's position which is taken up by the press. Judges have no right to indulge in that kind of conduct. I hope that the leaders of the legal profession in this country will see to it that any judge who, to use an ordinary British working class expression, "takes the mick" out of someone brought before him, is removed from the Bench. He is unfit to be a judge. A number of such judges exist. I cannot speak more honestly than that. As I have said, if anyone requires evidence to confirm what I have just said I am quite prepared to provide it.
The commission's report seeks at least to have divorce without anger. It is a remarkably good subject for a debate. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be primarily responsible for the report. His survey in introducing the debate was magnificent, as was the speech made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. I am particularly pleased that the report acknowledges that marriage itself becomes a terrible casualty when divorce is entered on. It is a heartbreaking situation for the husband, wife and children. The commission's proposals are that it would like to have mediation rather than acrimony. It is an extremely difficult situation. The subject of divorce is complicated. It is very difficult to find a reasonable solution. This particular Law Commission Report is making a good start so that one day we can perhaps have a more civilised, fair and just situation where divorce is inevitable and children are involved, and that the best that the courts can do for everyone concerned is to the credit of our country.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I have had the pleasure of sitting through the debate this afternoon and hearing brilliant speeches led by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I have learnt a very great deal. I do not want to repeat what has been so ably said because it is late and noble Lords would not wish me to go over matters again.
I begin by reminding your Lordships that for the second day this week we are dealing with problems that affect millions of people each year. Yesterday we debated drugs. We were told that in 1988 there were 19,179 addicts known to the Home Office. Today we are dealing with divorce. Although there were 382,000 marriages in 1989 in Great Britain, there were 162,500 divorces. Half the number of divorces occur during the first nine years of marriage, with 28 per cent. occurring between the fourth and ninth years. That means that any children involved are very young. Fifty-two per cent. of divorces affect children; that is over 2,800 children every week.
I was shattered when I read that statistic which I am sure is true. These terrible figures mean that not only are 3 million people in our midst experiencing heartbreak, tragedy, emotional and practical upheaval in their lives from which they will never completely recover, but I sincerely believe also that the children,
836
of whatever age, never fully recover from the trauma of losing a parent. I also believe that children are entitled to be brought up by one parent of each sex.
What are we to do? I was one of those who was disappointed that there was no mention in the Queen's Speech of discussing the problems of marriage and divorce within this Session of Parliament. I now understand that there needs to be far more discussion at every level in order to ensure that we get the matter right when we have a new divorce Bill.
I wish to compliment the commission on its report, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and especially for the understanding way in which it was written. It certainly came across to me that the people involved had a deep understanding not only of what they wanted in the Bill but also of the human relationship between one person and another. I agree that there should be a single ground for divorce. I would prefer a period of two years rather than one year. Proving any of the present five reasons for divorce must lead to more acrimony and bitterness and make the possibility of future relationships even more difficult.
I agree with the value of the passage of time. However, as I said, I would prefer a period of two years. I suggest that if the couple in disagreement have the benefit of helpful conciliation the conciliator should help the court by submitting a report to the judge who eventually makes a decision on the divorce. A conciliator would probably have had more opportunity of finding out what are the true problems and be able to judge and act accordingly. I do not know what proportion of marriages take place in church and registry offices. I say in the presence of the most reverend Primate that more emphasis should be put on the words in the marriage service:
"Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder".
The officiating clergy who have the responsibility of seeing couples before conducting the marriage service should refer to those words and remind the young couples (they are usually young) about the problems that they might become involved with. I think that the clergy can do that. It has been suggested that families and schools should also follow that course. I go along with the family suggestion to this extent. If the parents of the couple to be married have good reason for thinking that the marriage may not work then in my view they would be abrogating their responsibilities if they did not inform the young people of those fears.
When two people marry they remain two individuals. In the fullness of time they are bound to have disagreements and quarrels. At the crucial time of their first disagreements the relationship would be much helped if more services were available when they need the friendly advice that they probably cannot get from family or friends. That help would be available from people who have their interests at heart and who are able to give advice. Although such services are necessary and urgent, I do not consider a new body of professional advisers to be necessary. In my view, people who have common sense, patience, broad shoulders, and who are married and have children of

837
their own, can and do step in to provide from their own experience the necessary friendly word which can defuse the situation.
An excellent organisation, with which I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is also involved, is Families Need Fathers. That name says exactly what it stands for—families do need fathers. The members of the organisation find that they can help, probably over a pint in the local pub, the many men who have lost not only their wives but their precious children as well. Such men can also lose the roof over their head, their job, their self-esteem and their pride. But after friendly help through this organisation it has been possible in many cases to bring couples satisfactorily together again. We need more unpaid organisations of that kind. Plenty of people in this country have wide experience of family situations and can help in such cases. They can help the young people involved.
We are fortunate in having the well-established Relate organisation to act as mediator and conciliator. These are trained people. In 1989 the organisation helped 55,000 couples and individuals. The organisation needs more money; a point which I draw to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Who does not? On the other hand, as other noble Lords have said, we might be saving not only the future of the parents but also the future of the next generation. That is what is so important. At present, because of the shortage of staff the normal waiting time for an appointment is three months. By that time all is probably lost. I am sure that non-professional listeners can save a large number of marriages. That is the tenor of my few remarks today.
The report is a large and very important document. Although married couples and their problems are the reason for it, we must never forget that the welfare of the children is paramount. It is to the children and their future that legislation must address itself. I have spoken to many people going through a divorce. I have a feeling that they do not realise how vitally important both parents are for the nurturing and upbringing of their children. I can quote the case of a mother who absolutely refuses to give the father of their child access to him. He is now 14 and his parents have been divorced for the past six years. Unknown to the mother the boy goes round the corner and telephones the father once a week. The mother is now very surprised to learn that the child wants to become a submariner, like his father. She wants to know how the boy learnt of that. The boy has now had to tell her that he has been talking to his father behind her back every single week since the divorce.
I conclude with an important quotation from the Guardian of 2nd November 1990:
"Single parents are not the issue; divorce law is not the issue. The issue should be saving marriages. It is so much easier just to shell out blame but, if the government is to do the job that the Law Commission and the Lord Chancellor say needs to be done, if it is serious about a family policy, then marriages have to be supported and irretrievable breakdown prevented wherever possible. And that needs money and a shift in public and political attitudes".
6.35 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I found the report so interesting and good that I felt I must come to the House to say I support it. I realise that most of the reasons for supporting it have already been given but I put down my name to speak in case some noble Lords did not agree with it. My evening was saved by the fact that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, an old and revered friend, did not agree with it. His reasons for not agreeing with it, although understandable, are irrelevant.
My noble and learned friend said that the report did not deal with the problem of divorce. But it is not meant to deal with why people divorce. It is meant to deal with what happens to people when they feel they have to be divorced, which is an entirely different matter. The report seems to deal with that admirably. Other issues arising from it—issues such as why people are not nicer, why people are not more Christian and why we behave so frightfully badly—are best dealt with not through a Law Commission report but through careful, individual social work.
One or two noble Lords have spoken of the importance of the family. I have always believed that the family is the biological unit in society. For a number of years just after the war I was fortunate enough to work for the Pioneer Health Centre in Peckham, about which the noble and learned Lord and I spoke to each other the other day. We had there a family club. The members were families. Doctors were available, and social workers were fellow members. At the high point there were about 900 families. If something began to go wrong it was observed. It was sometimes possible to assist before a marriage went wrong and do something to put it right. That cannot be done by the law. What the law can do—and what it is trying to do, I think, admirably—is to stop the terrible things so eloquently described by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. He said that the present law does not do what it ought to do. I hope that, whatever else we think, we are in favour of going on with the proposals. The report was splendidly introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He said that the issue was very difficult and that he was being very cautious. I do not think that he should be cautious and I do not see the difficulty. What the report says is clearly right.
I speak on this issue with confidence because I celebrate my 56th wedding anniversary in three weeks' time. So let no one think that I am speaking against marriage. I believe I am correct in saying that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said that we should not have separation by consent. If I am wrong about that, I apologise. I not only believe that we should have separation by consent; I also believe that it should be the only acceptable reason. When consent is not possible, it will require the very elaborate system in the proposed Bill to ensure that nothing goes wrong. In the case of only one person consenting, the matter should be put back for a full year with an insistence upon conciliation, and so on.
My second point is one which has been made repeatedly. I refer to the extremely difficult question of

839
conciliation. Bearing in mind the number of people concerned, it must be said that bodies such as Relate, about which we have all heard and which is an extremely good organisation, cannot undertake all the work involved. Such organisations must be given enough money to carry out the work. It is no use saying that many other organisations need money. That is true. But if you want to make such a system work, you must ensure that there are adequate funds. After all, this is a fairly cheap job as social workers are all under paid. It is not difficult to obtain such people to do the work. However, there must be enough money to ensure that the work is done properly.
My third point concerns children under the age of 16 years. I am perfectly clear in my mind about the fact that divorce and separation are far more serious when the children are below the age of 16. I agree with my noble friends on that issue. That is not to say that you should prevent divorce or separation when the children are under 16. A bitter and quarrelling husband and wife are as bad an influence on the children as would be the case with a one-parent family.
It is all a question of degree. If two people really dislike one another—and those are the couples we are now considering—they can make the upbringing of their children worse than would be the case if there was only one parent. Therefore, one should not refuse the possibility of divorce even in such circumstances. However, far more money should be spent upon trying to produce conciliation.
I have relations who separated after their children had reached the age of 16. The children seemed to me to be entirely unaffected by what happened. Indeed, they are very fond of both parents. I do not believe that the experience has hurt them in the least. However, if the process had been carried out when they were four or five years of age, I am quite certain that it would have been ghastly for them. I do not have much else to say, but I should like to stress that I believe that the proposal which has been put forward is a very good one. It is something for which we have all been waiting. I hope that we do not have to wait too long before the legislation is introduced. I also hope that, when we have it, we shall all willingly support it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is aware that I came into the House especially to hear his speech. I must tell him that I am most disappointed that he concluded his remarks so soon.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I very seldom receive such a compliment from my noble friend.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, in the introduction to its report the Law Commission begins by saying,
"There is widespread concern about the current prevalence of divorce in this country and the consequences which this can have both for the couple concerned and for their children".
That statement is manifestly correct as we have the highest divorce rate in the European Community and
840
the highest rate of increase, while 27 per cent. of all children are born outside marriage. Surely, are those not clear signs of national moral decay?
Against that background, should not the aim of the Law Commission's report have been to buttress the stability of marriage? The Law Commission, however, does not agree; its implied aim is to make divorce "better". As the commission says in paragraph 3.4,
"for our predecessors, it was important that divorce law should send the right messages, to the married and the marrying, about the seriousness of permanence of the commitment involved".
That apparently no longer applies, because the Law Commission now recommends that divorce should be granted on filing a statement of marital breakdown, followed by a period of 12 months, thus reducing the status of marriage to a terminable contract.
A recent public opinion survey shows that there is no great support for change of the present divorce law. The survey found that 84 per cent. of respondents were in favour of,
"divorce for fault; i.e., where one party can show adultery, intolerable behaviour or desertion by the other".
That finding was confirmed by a Gallup poll published in the Daily Telegraph on 11th June 1990 which found that the majority was not in favour of "no-fault divorce". Yet the Law Commission recommends that all consideration of fault should be removed from the divorce and that a decree should be granted on the expiration of one year from making a statement of marital breakdown. I humbly submit that that is a grave mistake, for does there not have to be a moral base—that is, a sense of right and wrong—upon which the stability of family life, the law and the cohesion of society depend?
It is proposed in the report that once a statement of marital breakdown has been lodged with the court, the court should have power to make final orders relating to the financial provision for children and spouses together with property adjustment orders. Once there is a property adjustment order—usually a transfer of the matrimonial home—there is in effect a divorce because the break up of the home is central to the divorce process. It is true that the orders will not usually take effect until after the year of waiting has expired and a decree has been granted. Nevertheless, few marriages will survive the making of the order and the applicant will, in effect, have a divorce on demand.
Moreover, the bitterness of most divorce proceedings will simply be transferred to the issues of custody, financial provision and property adjustment. Great stress is laid in the report on the importance of couples seeking counselling and resolving their disputes by conciliation; but it is doubtful whether both parties will voluntarily seek conciliation. It is not proposed that the law should compel them so to do.
I am worried about the cost of these proposals. At present the vast majority of divorces are granted on affidavit evidence with neither party attending court. However, under the new proposals, the court will have a duty in all cases to hold a preliminary assessment, to monitor progress on the arrangements being made and to make any orders or exercise any of its powers

841
which can appropriately be exercised at that time. Will that not impose a heavy additional burden on already overworked county courts?
It is also proposed that the court will have power to extend the period of one year before announcement of the divorce decree, by ordering postponement, if arrangements for the children and financial provision have not been made. Again, that will place a heavy burden on the court. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether he will be kind enough to inform the House of the estimated cost of the Law Society's proposals which must, I presume, bear heavily on the Government's thinking in these stringent times?
The current ground for divorce is "irretrievable breakdown". That is proved by one or more of five facts; namely, adultery, behaviour, desertion, two years' separation with consent or five years' separation. It is rightly pointed out by the Law Commission that almost three-quarters of all divorces are based either on adultery or behaviour. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave a lucid exposition of this in his opening speech. Thus, in most cases, the divorce suit commences as fault based. However, legal aid from public funds is generally not granted to defend a divorce suit and that makes it extremely difficult in practice for the suit to be defended by a party, and heard by the court.
That inability by the parties to air their grievances leads to a sense of injustice. The Law Commission's answer to the problem is to remove issues of fault entirely. This is contrary to public opinion and, much more important, contrary to Holy Scripture, which clearly states in many places that marriage is a divine institution. Surely we should be guided by scripture in the formulation of any laws governing the marriage bond or its annulment. An alternative approach might be to enable the parties to have their allegations of fault heard by the new matrimonial procedures court, thus restoring a moral base to the proceedings. I commend this alternative approach to your Lordships.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I take part in this debate, as I am not a lawyer or a specialist in the field of matrimony. I do so because I am interested in protecting the structure of the family. I welcome the opportunity for us to debate this report. I have studied it with great interest: it makes a good case for the changes it recommends. However, I am a little uneasy that we seem to be moving further away from biblical principles which, as I understand them, allow divorce when there has been serious misconduct.
I have received a number of letters on this subject. My mind is still open, but it is extremely rash to go against biblical principles. I appreciate that the report's proposals would reduce the mud slinging and bitterness between divorcing couples, and that must be good. My worry is that it might be too easy for a husband or wife to initiate divorce proceedings and to set them in motion by making a statement of
842
breakdown, possibly in the aftermath of a row or in a fit of depression. Once the process has been set in motion it is difficult to stop.
The main burden of what I want to say tonight is that the report covers only one aspect of the problem of marriage in our society. Indeed it sets out to deal with the symptoms rather than the disease itself. This is not a criticism of the report: I am just stating a fact. Our main aim should be to increase the number of successful marriages and thereby decrease the number of divorces. I should like to offer your Lordships my thoughts on this subject under three headings: the need to enhance the status of marriage; the need to help people to prepare for marriage; and the need to sustain existing marriages.
As regards the status of marriage, it is plain that marriage is under constant attack. In our society we are often encouraged to get as much pleasure as possible out of life, regardless of the effects on others. Reflecting this attitude, the media tend to portray marriage as dull and frustrating. Adultery, on the other hand, is often presented as normal and exciting. We in Parliament, and especially the Government, can do much to influence attitudes towards marriage. However, it is not enough for us to pay lip service to it, if the laws we pass are against it.
For example, the ending of discrimination against married couples for tax relief on mortgages was to be welcomed but when we considered the embryo Bill last year we made a decision which I feel was to be deplored. It did not restrict fertility treatments such as IVF and AID to married couples. In effect, we agreed to allocate money and resources to the bringing into the world of children with possibly only one parent.
Next, the need for marriage preparation. Only a very small minority of couples are able to receive help in preparing for marriage. Many do not get the chance to consider thoroughly the issues involved in a marriage relationship, such as how to manage finances and to avoid getting into debt. They should also consider housing, the sexual relationship, the bringing up of children and, perhaps above all, the need to communicate with each other openly and honestly at all times. I believe that the churches could do more in this respect, and particularly if the hard-pressed clergy were to enlist the experienced laity to help them. I would ask the Government to see if more could be done in schools and whether there is scope for increasing the availability of pre-marital preparation courses.
Thirdly, the need to sustain marriages. In that respect the early years are of great importance. Over the last two years the charity Care for the Family, with which I am associated as a trustee of the parent organisation, Care, has run seminars under the title Marriage under Pressure. Those seminars have been attended by a cumulative total of 10,000 people, and they have disclosed a huge yearning among couples to improve their marriages and to prevent serious difficulties arising. I would ask the Government to review whether they are doing everything possible to encourage initiatives such as these seminars. Furthermore, if the recommendations of the report are carried out there will have to be an expansion of

843
counselling and conciliation services. I should like to suggest that counselling is made available to married couples before trouble arises as well as after.
Marriage is a God-given institution which is an essential part of any well-ordered society, and it deserves our fullest support. Children have a right, second only to the right to life, to have two parents, committed by marriage to each other and to their children. Therefore, at the same time as we try to improve the procedure for divorce let us do all we can to enhance the status of marriage, to help to prepare people for it and to sustain those marriages which are in existence. The possible benefits are immense.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I asked to speak just before the principal speakers who are winding up the debate this evening because I wanted to listen before I spoke. I have done so and I have heard some notable speeches. Only time will tell whether I have profited from what I have heard.
I have had some practice as an English divorce lawyer although I certainly would not begin to say that my practice matched those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is shortly to speak. What was significant about my practice was that it ceased more than 20 years ago. Under the fault-based system, I used to take undefended divorces and act as standby lawyer in my firm for defended divorces. I believe that the work of the divorce lawyer is of prime importance to divorce and to marriage.
I ceased practising that kind of law when the new legislation came in. I said then that I would not touch it again, and I have not done so. It seemed to me then and it seems to me now that the concept of irretrievable breakdown is a complete fudge. I very much suspect that if it is carried forward into the future, the fudge will be replicated.
The history of divorce law over the past 25 years has been deplorable. I should like to feel that it is just a deplorable interlude, but I very much doubt it. I doubt whether Law Commission Report No. 192 will necessarily bring the interlude to an end. I think we are unrealistic if we expect too much from the Law Commission's report, given that it was the predecessors of the Law Commissioners who have reported now whose report 22 years ago was in part responsible for the present mess. I think it is questionable whether divorce law and its reform is a law reform which properly ought to be handed to the Law Commission to look at. I doubt whether it should be within its remit.
One of the problems is that when a Law Commission report is received—and I think I detect some indications that this applies now —people listen to it with their critical faculties to a large extent suspended. In my opinion, a more useful report would have resulted from an inquiry whose members included representatives of various shades of opinion and disciplines from the churches and other organisations involved in the marriage field. That
844
would have given the possibility of dissent within the report which would have been useful. I give full credit to the manner in which the Law Commission in its report has indicated where dissent arises. But that is not as good as allowing those views to be expressed and to form part of the decision-making process itself. What we needed was a less monolithic report.
I should like to join other noble Lords who have agreed with this aspect of the report supporting the concept of divorce as a process over time. That is something that should be brought into the divorce law, because it should be possible for parties who are divorcing to remain together while the divorce is going on, both to aid the divorce process and to increase the possibility of reconciliation taking place.
In that respect, I was particularly struck by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who drew attention to the effect of the present system on people who cannot just part, cannot just move out. The husband cannot just leave the wife and the only way that this problem can be resolved is by ouster proceedings, which are a deplorable side aspect to the present state of the law.
The report identifies two basic objectives of a "good" divorce law. The commission sees its objectives as having been set out by its predecessors in their 1966 paper and still commanding widespread support. I agree with the Law Commission. The objectives are, first, the support of marriages which have a chance of survival; and, secondly, a decent burial with the minimum of embarrassment, humiliation and bitterness of those that are indubitably dead.
But I believe it is also a proper concern of the law, and a proper objective in a good divorce law, that there should be a good marriage law if only to make divorce less likely. I do not agree with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, which I understand to be that by changing the divorce laws you cannot make parties stay together. I believe that that is against the tenor of the commission's report. The report is written on the basis that one of the effects of a good divorce law will be to make divorce less likely, and that is one of the respects in which I am striving in my speech to support the views of the commission.
In paragraph 3.4 of the report I read,
"For some of our respondents, as for our predecessors, it was important that divorce law should send the right messages, to the married and the marrying, about the seriousness and permanence of the commitment involved".
I tie that comment up with my suggestion that a good divorce law deserves a good marriage law. Helen Oppenheimer is associated with that view, and she was a member of the then Archbishop of Canterbury's group which produced Putting Asunder, as is the national campaign for the family trust. This is a view which seems to be not stressed enough in the report.
It is on that basis that I view with very considerable alarm the report's proposal that marriages should be capable of being ended by one party, without the consent of the other, almost from the moment of marriage. The significance of that, which does not

845
seem to have been grasped universally, is that the report is misnamed The Ground for Divorce. What the report should be called is "Divorce without Grounds".
The most reverend Primate who has left us, as he said he would, missed that point. He strained after the gnat of divorce by consent, but, so far as I can see, completely swallowed unilateral divorce. If this is carried through into legislation, it is carrying serial bigamy to the extreme. I should certainly have thought that anyone who was prepared to act under this kind of legislation might, in the interests of the family and the children of the family —and I put this not entirely frivolously—well be served by bigamy itself.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, if I may interrupt, is the noble Lord saying that without the consent of both parties divorce should be impossible? That is what I understood him to say.
Lord Coleraine: No, my Lords. Under the present law a divorce without the consent of both parties is possible after, I think, five years.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, under the new law.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, we are not talking about new law. We are talking about the Law Commission's proposals, which I believe are that, at any time after the first year of marriage, any party can say that the marriage has broken down and in a year will be divorced. That is not satisfactory.
If that is what we are to have by way of divorce law—and I hope that we do not have it—it is the kind of law which reminds me of Groucho Marx, who said that any club which would have him as a member would not be worth joining. Any marriage based on this kind of law would not be worth taking on.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, as has been said, the Law Commission has produced an impressive and compelling report, even by its own very high standards, and I found it very hard to disagree with any of it, whether in its analysis of the past and of the present, or in its suggestions for the future. I certainly had my critical faculties positively bristling when I read it; but every argument that I mentally put up against any particular proposition in the report, I found knocked out in the next sentence or two. It is also good to see how the Law Commission has built on the Booth Committee's report of 1985.
The present law of divorce enacted in 1969 was a compromise between old fault-based divorce law and the desire to end irretrievably broken marriages. For a few lucrative if not happy years thereafter counsel were still employed to draft behaviour petitions. The trick was, and still is, to get as many opprobrious adjectives and adverbs into eight or so sub-paragraphs.
However, since 1969 there has been procedural tinkering, such that most divorcing people have their marriages now dissolved by a judge collectively pronouncing decrees at the start of the day's business, in a courtroom probably containing only himself and
846
the clerk who has read out a list of names of those to be divorced. I do not believe that that can do anything to assuage the sense of injustice to which the most reverend Primate referred. If I may in his absence mention the point to which he referred in the commission's report, about fault sometimes being retained for ancillary cases involving children and finance, I do not understand the Law Commission to suggest any change to the existing practice in that respect.
Fault is now confined to a few cases involving children and finance because the law has come to recognise the reality. The unimpeachable parent was one of those mythical figures like the man on the Clapham omnibus; and certainly in the Family Division nowadays the unimpeachable parent has long since been abandoned as an ideal.
Likewise, in financial and property cases conduct is very rarely allowed to be raised, for the very good reason that it is almost impossible to convert misconduct into financial terms in a fair way. How do you quantify the effect of being hit over the head with a frying pan every Friday night for five years as opposed to being hit over the head twice a week for 10 years? It is not possible, and it is unrealistic for the courts to attempt to do so.
It is certainly correct, as the report says at paragraph 3.46, that it is impossible to characterise any particular divorce system as too easy or too difficult. I do not believe that by making divorce less painful you are necessarily making it easier. For some the existing system probably is too easy and too quick, and it is ironic, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that it is the fault-based divorce petitions under our existing system that go through the quickest and are the more difficult to stop.
For other people it is undoubtedly too hard and too difficult to get a divorce, especially if they are compelled to leave home and stay separate for five years before they can divorce and resolve their finances and property with some finality. Faced with that prospect the temptation is to cobble together a behaviour petition—and that temptation is almost overwhelming—that will undoubtedly contain allegations which are either trivial or exaggerated, or a mixture of both. That produces a system that, were A. P. Herbert alive today, he would undoubtedly parody as he parodied the old system in his book Holy Deadlock.
There is in paragraph 2.11 of the report an echo of the remarks of A. P. Herbert, whose Mr. Justice Wool said:
"The English law of divorce, by its insanity, encourages lying. Everyone who comes into this court is presumed to be lying until the contrary is shown."
Out of deference to the noble and learned Lord I should complete the quotation of that learned, if fictitious, judge, who went on to say:
"In Scotland the law encourages the parties to tell the truth."
That said, I do not feel qualified to follow the noble Lords, Lord Molloy and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in praising the Scottish system so far as it concerns

847
property and finance. I am not qualified to do so. I know how the English system works; and for every half-a-dozen people who say that it is unfair on husbands, I can think of half a dozen who will say that it is unfair on wives, but I certainly know that given a choice a husband who can petition, or be divorced, in England or in Scotland will head for Edinburgh.
The defended divorce is a time-consuming, expensive and damaging anachronism. An intransigent or insensitive husband—and it is not always a husband—unwilling to face the financial consequences of divorce and the reality that the marriage is in trouble, if not over, can defend a petition. Strictly speaking, he may be perfectly entitled to do so and he may succeed, particularly if the allegations of misbehaviour are weak, badly pleaded, or, conversely, exaggerated. I have a recent example of a case of that sort in which the minor children were recruited as innocent spies on one side and the adult children were recruited as witnesses on the other side. It was almost too distressing to contemplate.
The commission report at page 5 cites a number of reported cases in which the courts have been compelled to dismiss behaviour petitions. I have an uncomfortable personal recollection of one of them, and even now find it hard to think of the misery still being endured for all I know by the family forced to remain together in two camps under one small roof until the five-year period has elapsed. The children pass their father on the stairs not speaking to him, and he not speaking to them; and that is a situation that will go on year in year out until the divorce court can intervene.
The assets, which are hard earned and barely adequate to keep one household let alone two, should not be squandered in the almost invariably destructive and negative exercise of a defended divorce. Not only are they destructive, they occupy the time of the courts who should be dealing with more deserving cases.
I suggest that the Law Commission was right in preserving irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce, but doing away with vestiges of the old law. That said, I do not entirely follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, into suggesting that there should be a possibility of shorter periods for the divorce process in exceptional cases. On that I find paragraph 5.6 of the Law Commission report persuasive. The noble Lord referred to cases of exceptional hardship, and I think by inference of exceptional depravity, which to my mind had echoes of the pre-1984 law where you had to show one or other of those two things to be enabled then to have leave to present a petition within three years of the marriage. For my part I would find that a retrograde step.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind to give way. Would he agree that in one of the cases that I cited; namely, where another stable relationship outside the marriage has occurred and a child is about to be born, the court would have no discretion even though the children had been looked after and financial arrangements agreed? The court would have no discretion but to see the child born out
848
of wedlock, whereas if they had the discretion, they could see that the child of the other relationship is born within wedlock because the parties could then marry.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I see the force of that argument. One also sees the converse argument that the desire to remarry can in itself become a blackmailing weapon, or an excuse for a blackmail. I put it in exaggerated terms. Perhaps those considerations are less pressing in view of the recently-enacted changes on the status of children born out of wedlock, and the potential for legitimising a child by a marriage after that child has been born. I certainly do not have hard views on that aspect of it. What I seek to avoid in that area is a return to fault-based examination of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity, which I do not think would be helpful.
I also take the view that it is correct that a change in the law alone will not be enough to change the realities of human behaviour, or the pain of marriage breakdown. Divorce will remain prevalent and people will still want to fight yesterday's battles. Contrary to the view of some, most lawyers—certainly most responsible ones—will try hard to keep their clients out of court, and to save them the cost, the time, and the acrimony of contested proceedings as well as the uncertainty of what the court may decide.
The Law Commission seems realistically to recognise that if a couple could agree about everything they probably would not be divorcing in the first place. In some cases the comparative ease of divorce itself increases the desire for a cathartic day in court over something, whether it be the children or the house. Almost every matrimonial lawyer you meet has his, or her, story about three hours negotiating about the destination of the toast rack after everything else had been agreed.
If changes of substance and not just of form are to be brought about, they will only come with the best use being made of the period of a year recommended by the Law Commission. It is right that financial matters and matters involving the children should no longer be seen as ancillary to the divorce but as central to the process of rearranging the family in the best way for the future. The parties will need a structured timetable; matters should not be allowed to drift. People who do not want to reveal their assets should not be allowed to play for time. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, as I understood it, that is the true function of Rule 77(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the aspect that I quoted arose because at the first hearing only the lawyers from one side appeared. The solicitor and barrister on the other side did not appear at all. The matter went on and on and the man had no idea about the law. In my judgment he was greatly let down by the offending lawyers. The solicitor and the barrister who failed to turn up ought to be brought before a disciplinary board of the legal profession. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Meston: My Lords, that is entirely another matter. I shall not go into the merits of the case, the facts of which I find difficult to comprehend.
Reference has been made to whether the period of a year is adequate. One has to face the fact that a year is a long time in the life of a child. Parties will need to be encouraged to reach agreements with which they can live, both in the short and the long term. One of the problems of the present system is that divorced people take too much unfinished business into subsequent marriages, imposing strain on those marriages and/or leading new spouses to feel that they must take sides. However, a new spouse can, in the best of worlds, be a helpful influence.
Like all noble Lords, I welcome the emphasis on conciliation. I wish to raise a few points of caution as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The first is that the procedures must enable the conciliator to be properly informed in order to have a clear view of the issues. Secondly, the imperative to agree must not overbear the weaker party—usually the wife—to reach a solution against her better interests. Thirdly—and this point was made forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—the facilities and funding must be available if conciliation is to achieve everything we wish.
I do not quite agree with the noble Lord's description of how conciliation works at present, although I suspect he was referring to Somerset House. I agree that the corridor there (which is barely adequate for the professionals who have to conduct other business) is not the best place for conciliation appointments for children. I have heard similar stories about the room in which the children have to wait. I have attended conciliation appointments at Somerset House and my understanding is that the system works well. The welfare officer is present at the outset rather than after a time. Given the constraints, the system can work extremely well. Conciliation is not a panacea. I do not apologise for mentioning that we must be sure not to lose the expertise of the Family Division judge and district judges.
I welcome the thought given to the need to balance the pressures which may affect the bargaining position of the parties in the period of a year. Quite often, parties complain that they are being blackmailed. It is right that a widow's pension rights should be considered before the marriage is dissolved. It is equally desirable that one party should not be allowed to use the other's desire to divorce and remarry to extract coo high a price in financial terms.
I also welcome the new proposals for more flexible financial and property adjustment powers. I do not wish to enter into technicalities at this stage. I should like to see an express power to make interim lump sums, for example, so that people can put down a deposit on a new house. That can break a log jam in rehousing, particularly when the property market is stagnant. I also hope that the proposed power to vary property adjustment may be useful; but it should be used sparingly, not storing up uncertainties and potential future litigation.
Finally, the Law Commission has produced a draft Bill. We understand that it may be some time before it comes before Parliament. It will quite properly
850
require important subordinate legislation. In that case, I hope that consideration will be given to producing draft rules before the Bill is presented to Parliament.
I do not believe that we can put the clock back. I respect the views of those who want a fault-based system, but putting divorce off until the children have reached 16 can be a recipe for misery. If one considers something more civilised, choosing between a statement that one's marriage has broken down irretrievably or the old system which involved trips to Brighton hotels and inquiry agents lurking in the bushes, I know which I prefer.
We shall not arrest the trend of marriage breakdown by mere legislation. I prefer to consider the subject more optimistically. Marriage remains popular; two-thirds of marriages do not end in divorce. In part, divorce is the product of unrealistically high expectations of marriage. This is not confined to young people; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, stressed, it applies to more elderly couples who may forfeit pension rights and have to sell up the homes which they had intended for their retirement.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I hope that as part of this process we should consider education before marriage which will enable couples, young and old, to examine the realities and responsibilities that they are taking on.
7.26 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Although I do not usually go in for prophecy, I believed that the views to be expressed would be somewhat varied, and they have been. I assure noble Lords who have spoken that all they have said will be taken into account in considering what we should do on this important matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, advises that we should go ahead quickly. Caution is important if we are to achieve the kind of consensus on the matter which is desirable. It may be necessary to have a fuller understanding of some aspects of the Law Commission's report before that consensus is fully achieved. With its consideration of these matters, the debate has greatly assisted us.
A number of important suggestions have been made for variation of the Law Commission's proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke of a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred. He wanted exemption from the 12-month period in a defined class of case to make it subject to judicial discretion, perhaps be limited in some way, or a similar provision. He instanced the case of a new stable relationship with, as a result, a child on the way. That should be considered. The Law Commission examined the proposal but one of the difficulties is that one does not want that to be a route for obtaining a quick divorce because it would put a premium on such behaviour. On the other hand, the suggestion is worthy of careful consideration.

851
My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve would like the 12-month period extended to two years. The Law Commission considered that but decided that it was a difficult judgment. It came down, for the reasons it had expressed, in favour of one year. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York wanted greater powers to postpone divorce. He was worried that a power to make orders about children and finances during the 12-month period might undermine the purpose of the cooling off period. I also see the force of that. Another way of looking at it is this. If we are to face people with the consequences of the divorce—which is one of the purposes of the 12-month period—the more defined those consequences are, the more people will understand them.
One of the consequences of divorce which is often not taken into account until it is too late is the effect on the financial position of the parties. If that could be brought home to them in a concrete way it might just be enough to turn them back to one another again. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, referred to the fact that some people who have obtained a divorce have lived to regret it. If it is at all possible for couples to repent, one hopes that that happens sufficiently early to remedy the situation rather than after a divorce has been obtained.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has great experience in these matters. He made a number of suggestions. He suggested that a rule could be passed to prevent divorce occurring when couples had children under 16. One has to remember that it is the breakdown of the relationship rather than the divorce itself which is harmful to the children. I merely express my own view on this matter, but I personally take the view that it is vitally important that any divorce law should put the children first. Divorce laws should aim to protect the children from harm of the kind that we know they can suffer during a divorce. The thought behind the suggestion of my noble and learned friend is one that commends itself to me, but, I regret that it does not appear at the moment that the provision would necessarily have the result that my noble and learned friend had in mind.
In commenting on various points made in the debate I should point out that that does not mean that I shall not consider them further. I shall obviously want to give a considerable degree of thought to all the proposals that have been made. A number of noble Lords mentioned the financial provisions involved in divorce. Some noble Lords gave particular praise to the Scottish system in this connection. Your Lordships will appreciate that it would not be particularly appropriate for me to comment on that. However, I remind the House that part of the programme for the review of family law that we have in mind will consider those provisions. Some of those provisions are considered in the Law Commission's report.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the organisation and funding of conciliation and counselling procedures. Obviously those matters must
852
play a part in any arrangement that is to be suitable for divorce proceedings. It is obvious that when we consider our position on this matter we shall keep those considerations in mind. My noble friend Lord Ashbourne asked me whether those provisions had been costed. I can tell my noble friend that that has not yet been done. I do not wish to do that until we obtain a much clearer idea of the proposals that we intend to put forward. At the moment the proposals are those of the Law Commission. They have been set out in great detail in the report and they are accompanied by a draft Bill, but they are still subject to detailed consideration before any further progress is made as regards legislation.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine doubted whether the Law Commission was the best organisation to conduct the review we have been discussing. I believe that over the years the Law Commission has developed considerable expertise in analysing issues where people hold different points of view. The report thoroughly analyses the responses to the consultation and indicates the areas of disagreement and the questions that have been raised. While there are various other ways in which the review could be conducted, the Law Commission's report indicates a structured and generally acceptable way of analysing these matters. Holding a debate on such matters is extremely helpful, and this debate has been so. If and when legislation is proposed further consideration will have to be given to these matters and ultimately Parliament will have to consider them with great care.
A number of points have been made which are not immediately directed to the report. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, raised the question of the arrangements for, and the organisation of, a service for supporting the courts. One has to be careful in this area and not try to aim too high at one goal. We have been able to make considerable progress in connection with the arrangements for the implementation of the Children Act in obtaining co-operation across departments and across disciplines in respect of the training of magistrates and judges with other professionals. We have arranged for this training to be carried out in groups so that the different professionals can see the point of view of fellow professionals in other disciplines. We have also made provision for the setting up of committees to monitor these arrangements and to report to Ministers who are concerned with these matters.
We have to handle existing cases with the existing system but try to improve it at the same time. However, in the nature of things the resources that are available to us are necessarily limited. I hope that the way forward as stated in the Children Act will prove successful. I believe that way is to take steps that we can accomplish and for which the resources can be provided. We should assess the success of those steps. If they are reasonably successful, we can then move further forward. We are embarked upon that process and I hope it will be successful.
Those are the main matters to which I wish to direct the attention of your Lordships. I may be repeating myself unnecessarily but I wish to make it absolutely

853
plain that the mere fact that I have commented on a proposal does not mean that I do not consider it worthy of further consideration. We certainly wish to consider these matters with great deliberation. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to some detailed points. We are anxious to receive opinions on such detailed points. I intend to have public consultation on these matters and receive views on the reports that have been written.
As I sought to emphasise at the outset, these are not proposals for divorce by consent. The courts have a power —the Law Commission proposes that this power should continue—to refuse a decree altogether in the event of grave financial or other hardship. That is certainly inconsistent with the idea of divorce by consent. The courts retain that power, though consideration may be given to the precise terms in which that power should be expressed. The report contains some interesting comments on the way that power may impinge on, for example, difficulties in certain communities. However, the fact that that power of the courts is reserved makes it clear that we are not talking about divorce by consent.
As I understand the position, the Law Commission is aiming at a situation in which notification of breakdown would be given. That is the first stage. Then the year that has been referred to is devoted to ascertaining whether that breakdown is irretrievable. The purpose of the year is to try to retrieve the marriage, if possible, and to put it back on its proper course. I believe that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale was possibly not giving full effect to the aspirations of the Law Commission in saying that it did not even pay lip service to the idea of a lifelong marriage. It set out as one of the objectives of a good divorce law the saving of the marriage. A marriage that is saved, presuming that it is saved for long enough, will be terminated only by the death of one of the parties.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is most kind to give way. I know that on important matters of this nature he wishes to be correctly reported. If I am wrong he will reprimand me. He has just talked about the Law Commission, divorce by consent, and not permitting divorce. Does he not mean that the court would have the power to refuse divorce which is requested unilaterally?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it covers that aspect also. I wanted to answer the point about divorce by consent. The Law Commission proposed that the court should have power to postpone the divorce or to refuse divorce if there would be grave financial or other hardship. The noble Lord may think that it would be very unusual for the court to exercise that power if both parties consented. It would be very hard for the court to see hardship which was not seen by one or other of the parties. I am simply pointing out that the principle behind the proposal recognises what the most reverend Primate recognised; namely, that the public have an interest in these matters and the ultimate power of the court is a recognition of that interest.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend. However, is he right in saying that the limited power of the court to withhold a divorce in cases of exceptional hardship is inconsistent with divorce by consent? If there is divorce by consent, presumably the parties who have consented are content with the arrangement. Is it not a very limited exception to the fact that the proposal allows divorce at the unilateral volition of one party?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it certainly has that effect. It prevents it being said that the proposals have the effect of allowing divorce at the insistence of one party against the will of the other. That is the purpose. However, the most reverend Primate indicated—and the same point arose in the speech of my noble friend Lord Ashbourne—that the recognition that the court, on behalf of the public, has an interest in the marriage is deeper than the idea of a private contract. The interest of the court in the matter is inconsistent with the view that there is a private contract which the parties can cancel at their own will.
The other point in that connection is that the time applies whatever the attitude of the parties, subject to consideration of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
I accept that if both parties consent, the idea that the court would find grave hardship is a fanciful one, but it is the theory that I seek to adduce now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Corporate Governance
7.43 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their current views on corporate governance.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that this Question, which is of great importance, arises at a late hour. I had hoped that it would be debated earlier. Indeed, when it was understood that the debate that has just terminated was going on for rather longer than expected there was a question as to whether I should take the Question off the Order Paper. In the end I decided to keep it on the Order Paper because the Minister has made an effort, in cancelling a number of appointments and obligations, to answer the Question. I felt that it would be discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, if I did not pursue the matter.
I cannot say that I am speaking to a full House. Indeed, looking around me I see that there are very few noble Lords in attendance, apart from those who will participate in this short debate. That is rather astonishing. The question of corporate governance is of great importance to many noble Lords who hold positions of distinction in companies in this country. I remember that when the Bill relating to audit committees came before your Lordships—a Bill which was taken through another place by the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams—I spoke in favour of it from this Dispatch Box. A phalanx of noble Lords on the Benches opposite—chairmen of companies, finance

855
directors of companies—spoke against the Bill, which was designed to make audit committees statutory. I cannot see any of those noble Lords opposite today when we are debating the general considerations of corporate governance.
It is sad that we should be deprived of the benefit of the experience of noble Lords opposite who come to this House perhaps because they have persuaded their shareholders to contribute a great many funds to the Conservative Party—I know not why they come—when such matters are before your Lordships.
The Question originates from a statement made by Mr. John Redwood, who I believe is a Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, on 7th December 1990. The statement is headed "Corporate Governance". Mr. Redwood said in that statement—and I believe he is quite right—that,
"The quality and style of corporate governance is now moving high up the agenda".
As we read through the statement we see that some very interesting views were put forward by the Minister. It seemed to me that your Lordships would be interested in exploring exactly what the Minister meant by those interesting views.
I therefore compiled a list of questions that I wished to raise in today's debate, which I passed to the Government Whips' Office. I understand that they may have lost it or that the department lost it. I understand that in the course of time the list filtered through to the office of the Minister, and the Minister is prepared to reply. I wish to make it clear that I have given prior notice—at least 48 hours—of the questions that I shall ask. If the Government do not have a response to those questions it is not because they come out of the blue.
The Redwood statement—if I can use that shorthand expression—includes a number of rather odd expressions. I seek first to discover what is what is meant by the expression used by Mr. Redwood that,
"A recent survey shows that the UK is top of the league in the performance of European major companies".
What performance? Are UK companies better in any respect—in terms of profitability or of productivity—than major European companies?
My second question relates to the statement made by Mr. Redwood when talking about corporate cleanliness and deterrence of fraud that,
"Some of the dangers could be headed off if all companies had a sensibly structured board".
What is meant by "a sensibly structured board"? What view do the Government take about what is a sensibly structured board and what is an insensibly structured board?
Thirdly, Mr. Redwood says in his statement that,
"A non-executive chairman has a special duty to look after shareholders' interests".
I contend that a non-executive chairman—whatever that may mean, and we shall come to that—has exactly the same duties as all other directors of a company. Not least he has a responsibility, a special duty, as do all directors under Section 309 of the Companies Act 1985, and I quote from that Act,
"to have regard in the performance of their functions"—
these are the functions of the directors of a company—
856
"[to] the interests of the company's employees in general, as well as the interests of its members".
So, by any reasonable interpretation of the Companies Act, the chairman has an obligation to look after the employees' interests as well as the interests of the shareholders.
On reading Mr. Redwood's statement I ask myself: by what virtue can a Minister claim that a non-executive chairman has a special duty to have regard to one class of people rather than another class of people when both classes in the Companies Act, under legislation passed by this Parliament, comprise an obligation for directors? Why is a Minister preaching what seems to me to be illegality?
The statement goes on:
"The Government is keen to encourage the appointment of many more truly independent non-executive directors".
What is a "truly independent non-executive director"? There is no definition of a non-executive director in the Companies Act. During the passage of the Companies Bill 1989 we tried, when it was before this House, to introduce a definition, but the Government set their face against it. There is no definition. So we do not know what a non-executive director is, other than possibly a former Conservative Cabinet Minister. And we do not know what "truly independent" means. Is "truly independent" a non-executive director who has no relationship at all with the chairman and who can resign freely at his own discretion when something goes wrong to which he objects? If so, I should be grateful if the noble Lord can point out to me any non-executive director who is truly independent in that sense.
My fifth question relates to the statement by Mr. Redwood that,
"The presence of non-executives on a company board may well scale down the more outrageous ambitions of chief executives and chairmen".
What "outrageous ambitions" had Mr. Redwood in mind when he made that statement? Are those non-executive chairmen—because the statement clearly distinguishes between chief executives and chairmen—also imbued with "outrageous ambitions"?
My sixth question relates to the statement that,
"Non-executive directors should ask questions of company finance directors as to how long term their funding is".
Do the Government see that as a specific duty for non-executives? After all, I should have thought that it was a specific duty on all directors to determine for themselves and make a judgment of the gearing in the balance sheet and the finances of the company. That is not a special non-executive function.
My seventh question relates to the expression "evidence is rising". I apologise for the English of that expression but it is the language of the Minister, Mr. Redwood. I did not know that evidence ever rose. He says that,
"evidence is rising that except in the very short term takeovers can all too often damage the wealth of shareholders of the bidding company rather than improving it".

857
The evidence has been there for a long time. It was there in the Green Paper of 1979 and was repeated in the DTI up-date on merger policy in 1986. There is no question of evidence rising. We all know what has happened.
My last question relates to the statement made by Mr. Redwood that,
"The UK stock market usually gives the highest ratings and the best support to those companies which invest successfully in the future and in research and development".
What is the evidence for that statement? There is no evidence for it. On the contrary the market gives the highest ratings to takeover targets in anticipation of bids. That is the fact of the matter. There is no evidence.
I do not know the status of the statement. It is a ministerial statement. It was not made in Parliament but issued as a DTI press release. I do not know whether it has been debated in another place. It has certainly not been debated in this Chamber. It raises all kinds of issues which may simply be irresponsible. Maybe the Government have a considered view. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, wishes to speak about non-executive directors and how that may dovetail into any European arrangements which may be made in the future. None of that is covered in this important statement on corporate governance. Is it not right that, if there is to be a government statement on this tremendously important matter, it should be properly prepared, properly debated in both Houses of Parliament and properly considered by all those noble Lords who are absent tonight?
7.58 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am very pleased indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, should have raised this Question for debate. Like him, I am extremely surprised that so few Members of your Lordships' House are present to debate it. The reason may be the phraseology—the somewhat grandiloquent phrase "corporate governance". Corporate governance means the framework in which boards conduct the business of companies, particularly public limited companies.
There is not the slightest doubt of the great importance of this issue. I should like to take the matter rather more widely than has the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who concentrated on the important press notice recently put out by the Government. I shall come to a number of the specific issues that he raised in due course.
First, I believe that it is necessary to consider for a moment the background against which companies have had to operate, particularly in the past decade. It has been a decade of dramatic changes in atmosphere and the circumstances in which companies have had to operate. In the early 1980s there was undoubtedly a dominance of takeovers, sometimes on a massive scale. In the USA in particular that gave rise to a reappraisal of the position of management in relation to shareholders. The name of T. Boone Pickens, for example, became a name that struck horror in the boardrooms of many large American corporations. As a result of the rush for growth, takeovers, and
858
defences against takeovers, many companies became over-borrowed. That happened not only in the United States; it was a phenomenon in this country as well. In due course the reaction set in. It was sparked off by the Stock Market crash in 1987. That was followed by a number of important company failures and accompanied by a serious weakness in the US banking system which was the other side of the corporate over-borrowing coin.
During that period of turbulent change in the circumstances in which companies had to operate, it is not surprising that serious attention was given to the way in which companies should operate and their structures should be organised. Many important bodies began to study the issue; in particular, Pro-NED—the body sponsored by the Bank of England and other organisations in the City and industry which is specifically concerned with the role of non-executive directors—the Stock Exchange, the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the Institutional Shareholders' Committee, the National Association of Pension Funds and the Association of British Insurers. They are only a few of the organisations which have examined the issue. While all that intensive study was taking place on this side of the Channel, on the other side of the Channel in Brussels there continued to be an attempt to find a way of harmonising European company structures. There are the latest amended proposals for the Fifth Directive on which the Government have been consulting all interested parties.
I believe that beginning to emerge from the study is the concept of a code of practice, either of a voluntary or legislative nature, for the conduct of the affairs of quoted companies. The document which most encapsulates that was issued by Pro-NED in April 1987 on the role of non-executive directors. Essentially, the problem that we are talking about is the relationship on boards between executive and non-executive directors. In Britain that has always been vaguely defined. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right in saying that in the whole corpus of the Companies Act there is no single reference to the existence of non-executive directors; all directors are considered to be equal.
As a result of all the studies and recommendations made, not least those in the press notice to which the noble Lord referred, a broad supervisory role is now being seen as the proper function of non-executive directors so that the interests of other stakeholders, shareholders and employees can be taken into account, in the words of the Act, and the effective co-operative of executives can be ensured.
We are told by all those who studied the issue in this country that what is necessary is a better balance between executives and non-executives on the boards of public companies. What is meant by a proper balance varies according to those who consider it. For example, Pro-NED considers that about one-third of a board should be non-executive. It would prefer the chairman to be non-executive and the non-executives to form the audit committee and remuneration committee which fixes salaries and can appoint executive directors.

859
Although most of the interested parties in Britain still strongly object to the concept of a two-tier board, it appears to me as though we are moving in that direction. I wish to quote from the latest annual report of Grand Met. Sir John Harvey-Jones, of ICI fame, is the non-executive deputy chairman of Grand Met. As a result of a statement from him produced in the company's annual report it appears that he is acting as the ex officio leader of the non-executives and he sets out what they do. He states:
"We are involved as non-executives in a whole range of key activities from the Audit Committee, the Management Development Committee and the Appraisal and Remuneration Committee to, and perhaps most vital of all, the long meetings held off-site at which we formulate our strategies and plans".
He ends by stating:
"I am pleased to say that we believe that our board is at the forefront of best practice of corporate governance".
That suggests that a fairly clearly defined supervisory role is allocated to the non-executive directors in that company.
In my opinion we are getting near to the Dutch system. In Holland there is a supervisory board and an executive board. I know something about that because for four years I served on the supervisory board of a Dutch company. Having had considerable experience of being on the boards of British companies either as an executive or, more recently, as a non-executive director, for the first time in my life I clearly understood my duties and responsibilities as a non-executive director. In fact, under this system the non-executive directors are ultimately responsible to the shareholders. They must take into account the interests of employees.
I must point out that under the Dutch system there are no employee representatives on the supervisory board, unlike the German system. At board meetings the chair is taken by the chairman of the supervisory board. His colleagues sit on one side of the table and the executive directors, under their executive chairman, sit on the other side of the table. They render account to the supervisory members of the board. Equally, the chairman of the supervisory board presides over annual general meetings. The chairman of the executive board makes a report to the assembled shareholders.
Before I turn to the legislative aspect, I wish to speak about the role of institutional shareholders in Britain. In spite of all efforts to widen share ownership the vast bulk of shareholdings in Britain are in the hands of institutions. They account for some 60 to 70 per cent. They are capable of exerting considerable influence on the affairs of companies, particularly during takeover battles and at times of special difficulty in certain companies.
There has been much debate about the alleged short-term approach of some institutional and banking organisations. I do not know what truth there is in that. I have come across institutions which have struck me as being short-term in their approach and others which have had a long-term approach. However, while considering the role of non-executive directors and other directors in companies, it might be appropriate to consider a code of practice for the role
860
of institutional shareholders in relation to companies in which they have funds invested. I understand that the Institution of Shareholders Committee is studying that matter.
All that leads to the role that should be played by government through legislation or other means. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has reminded the House that in the whole range of companies Acts the only reference to the function of directors is in Section 309(1) of the 1985 Act which he quoted. It states that in the performance of their functions directors should have regard to the interests of the company's employees as well as to the interests of its members.
We know that on a number of occasions the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, to whom the noble Lord referred, sought to introduce into the company legislation more precision as regards the role and function of directors, in particular non-executive directors. In 1978 and 1987 he introduced Private Member's Bills to that effect. Although the Bills had considerable support they never got onto the statute book.
I suggest that, as the definition of the role of non-executive directors is developing, there is a consensus growing that they should exert a supervisory role, that there should be audit and remuneration committees and that preferably the chairmen of companies should be non-executive. Sooner or later we should have reference to that in legislation. Otherwise, we shall have an increasingly confused situation with some companies, such as Grand Met. whom I quoted, carefully following the recommendations of the various bodies to which I have referred and working effectively on the basis of having what amounts to a supervisory board, and other companies totally ignoring the situation and perhaps having no non-executive directors on the board at all.
The way in which the thinking is developing in Brussels, the emergence of the single market and a consensus of opinion on best practice in this country lend considerable support to the view that sooner or later this subject should be addressed by legislation.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I also wish to thank my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for giving the House this opportunity to discuss such an important subject. However, like my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I believe it is a pity that more noble Lords on the Benches opposite, so many of whom in Who's Who (regular reading) state that corporate governance is their trade, have not in their wisdom decided to take part in this evening's debate. Perhaps some of them fear change or, understandably, are embarrassed because they do not understand their role as directors because of the ambiguities and vagueness with which it is defined or not defined.
However, we welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who has joined our small party. I was once a partner in a stockbroking firm which acted as a broker for one of the Minister's corporate ventures. I reassure the House that that was very visionary and

861
exciting. Therefore, our debate may be small but it is experienced and cosy. As always, quality matters more than quantity.
The subject of corporate governance is wide. My noble friend Lord Williams covered its main aspects with his customary clarity and I look forward to the Minister's precise answers to his penetrating questions.
I wish to concentrate on two aspects of this subject: independent directors—already well touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra; and the role of auditors. I start with independent directors, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, because they are at the core of corporate governance in the so-called shareholders' democracy. In fact, shareholders' democracy does not exist in Britain because of the defects of present corporate governance. Truly independent directors, where they exist, are best placed to defend the shareholders' interests, to expose the inefficiencies of cosy management and to give early warning of malpractice. Most of the recent highly publicised corporate scandals could have been avoided or exposed at an earlier stage by alert and truly independent directors. Unfortunately such animals are still too rare in Britain. The companies which have them, such as Grand Met., are usually the best run companies which need them least. Those which need them sometimes try to avoid them or choose tame ones—retired friends of the chairman looking for a sinecure. Those who fall in that latter category are unlikely to ask the necessary awkward questions.
Apart from the main board, there are two key roles for independent directors in any company: chairman of the audit committee and chairman of the compensation committee. Such independent scrutiny is essential if shareholders are to be protected, the company's finances scrutinised and executive directors are not left to pay themselves excessive compensation. There have been a number of such cases in recent times.
Such non-executive directors should be chosen independently. The American institution of the nomination committee could be a useful vehicle, selected by the wider shareholders and itself nominating the independent non-executive directors. That would help prevent or mitigate the common practice of the chairman selecting the non-executive directors to support rather than question him. I should add that representatives of the workforce should also be included on the key committees. Employees as well as shareholders need protection and representation.
The problem which we all recognise is how to secure the introduction of more truly independent non-executive directors. Under its wings the Bank of England has established Pro-NED, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred, to advance the cause of non-executive directors. That is a very worthy and, on my observation, well run institution. However, it cannot claim great success. It has plenty of good candidates on its books but too few takers. Perhaps the Bank of England has not given it sufficient backing from the top. It should certainly try to do more.
862
The final responsibility for securing independent non-executive directors lies with the shareholders who should press for that. We know that individual shareholders are not well organised and are usually passive. Therefore, the department should accept that cause as a major departmental objective. It should campaign and educate on its behalf. It should press the Bank of England to do more. Above all it should look to provide statutory backing and definition to the role of independent director.
Large institutional shareholders should also be more aggressive—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred. They should insist that companies in which they invest have truly independent non-executive directors accountable to the shareholders. Perhaps they should issue ratings for companies according to the quality of their corporate governance.
Non-executive directors should be properly paid to do a proper job. At present they are often paid a small fee to do virtually nothing. I sympathise with my noble friend Lord Williams. They should be paid a high fee and expect to devote several days per month to doing the job properly. They should be provided with full facilities by the company and full access to financial information. Without that, they cannot do the job.
The second point on which I wish to touch, which has not arisen, is the role of auditors and the preparation of meaningful accounts. It has been apparent for many years that a company's audited accounts in this country may reveal much or very little. Often it requires an analyst—and I employed such people—with the skills and the scepticism of an MI6 Kremlinologist to interpret what is really happening in the company. Company accounting has in recent years generated a volume and spirit of creativity far beyond that achieved in artistic spheres under the remit of the Arts Council. Auditors sign off company accounts as representing a true and fair picture when in reality the financial picture is distorted beyond recognition. As an example of that, I believe that no UK clearing bank has shown a true and fair account of its financial position in its published accounts for the past 10 years.
Noble Lords will be aware that many of the highly publicised bankruptcies of recent years involved companies whose most recent accounts were signed off by distinguished auditors as being profitable and with apparently healthy assets. The heart of the problem is twofold. Currently, accountants are merely required to follow certain basic rules and have never been strictly required to provide shareholders with meaningful information about the company.
An even greater practical problem is that auditors are in a desperately competitive business. They want to retain the fees of their corporate clients and are reluctant to upset their chairmen and boards. In practice, they work for the executive board and not the wider shareholders. Consequently, at times there is great pressure on them to accept creative accounting designed to put the board in the best possible light.

863
Against that background, it was encouraging to read recently the proposals for reform of accounting procedures linked to the Accounting Standards Board and the Financial Reporting Council. It is not possible here—I am not fully qualified to do so—to comment upon those proposals in detail. However, the proposals to restrict off-balance-sheet financing; to make cash flow statements compulsory, and above all, to make it an overriding requirement that accountants explain to shareholders what is really happening in the company should be welcomed and encouraged. Such changes would restrict creative accounting. Had they operated in the 1980s we should have been spared the sad sight of so many of the great heroes of the Thatcherite entrepreneural spirit becoming multi-millionaires overnight and then going bankrupt the moment that interest rates rose.
I shall not detain the House longer. I am daunted to find that I comprise one-third of the debate. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that issue will be considered seriously by the Government. The DTI should radiate urgency —a unique experience—towards the other relevant bodies: the Bank of England, the CBI, the TUC, and the Institute of Directors; but, most important, it must look again at company law to give definition and backing to the role and obligations of directors. Ultimately, we are discussing the efficiency of British industry, and hence the health of the whole economy.
8.22 p.m
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, although we may be few in number I am sure that the content of this evening's Unstarred Question has been an addition to the annals of your Lordships' House.
The Government take a keen interest in corporate governance, and we have followed with interest the public discussion of issues relating to it over recent months. To ask for the Government's views on that vast subject is perhaps a little like asking for the Government's views on industry or on the environment; but I shall do my best to mention the main topics of interest, and particularly those that have been raised in this debate.
Corporate governance concerns the ways in which companies are managed and controlled, the ways in which the managers are accountable to the company and particularly to its owners, and to other interests such as creditors, customers and employees. Some aspects of those relationships are covered by the law. Others—the majority—are a matter of good common practice, or else practice which is appropriate to the circumstances of each company.
The Government can and do have views on good common practice, and I shall set out some key points. On the practice of individual companies I have nothing to say, since only they can be expected to understand their particular needs. But in neither case is there a need for legislation. In general, the Government's view is that where the law does touch on corporate governance it already provides the right
864
balance between the need to give directors the freedom to direct and the need to protect the other interests that I have just mentioned.
However, company law is constantly evolving, partly now through the pressure towards harmonisation within the European Community and particularly in the financial services sector where the handling of other people's money makes protection and regulation more important than elsewhere. Thus, the Government are always open to ideas for change when a convincing case is made, demonstrating a real need among companies generally. I have taken note of the suggestions made in the debate.
Turning to the social and cultural background to the British style of corporate governance, I do not believe we need be detained by such general matters as the objectives of the capitalist system, the purpose of a company, and the role of profits and dividends. They are and always will be the subject of academic debate, and I want to concentrate on matters upon which the Government's views may carry some weight.
The public debate on corporate governance has re-emerged on the agenda for a variety of reasons: notably, several recent major insolvencies and increased success in tracking down malpractice including fraud, insider dealing and market manipulation. At the same time, there has been a related debate on short-termism, which has been looking at the evidence—so far inconclusive—as to whether companies should be giving higher priority to long-term investment and, if so, what is preventing them from doing it.
Insolvency and malpractice often go together in the public mind, but the reality is that companies can and do become insolvent through bad luck or bad management. There can be lessons to be learned from insolvencies—and not only those which hit the headlines—and sometimes they can be lessons about corporate governance.
It is inevitable that managers will from time to time get things badly wrong. But that must be seen in the context of a survey by Director magazine which found that the UK is top of the league in the performance of major companies in Europe, with 27 out of the best 50 performers coming from the UK. We have much to be proud of in the corporate management field—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt. Will the Minister explain what is meant by that quotation in the Director magazine? What is the top—
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am surprised by the slightly unusual practice of the noble Lord rising during the reply to an Unstarred Question. I can assure him that I was coming to that point later. I have cancelled arrangements and Government business to be here tonight.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. This will go on, because I have taken a great deal of trouble, and the Minister had taken a great deal of trouble, to ensure that we know what questions are on the agenda.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I made it clear to the noble Lord, outside your Lordships' House, that I would address the points which he has raised. I have gone to considerable trouble to be in your Lordships' House to do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, so have we all.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Perhaps I may continue.
The view, with which the Government agree, that several non-executive directors can, if they are genuinely independent, provide a useful check on the executive directors of a company, is a view which is supported by experience as well as common sense. Separating the role of chairman and chief executive, and providing for a checking or auditing role within the board may also be desirable in many cases, especially as companies grow larger and more complex.
There is little point in requiring any of that by law, however, since accountability and good corporate governance require co-operation from those affected by it, and in some cases exceptions may be entirely justified. Shareholders and creditors are well able to ask questions and form their own views about the soundness of the regime in a company. Management which then ignores those views does so at its peril. That approach to the problems of corporate governance reflects our steadfast opposition to proposals, whether they be British or Community-inspired, which take the blinkered view that there is one perfect style that will fit any case.
That is not to say that British companies cannot borrow ideas from other countries to improve their performance as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. Banks, for example, might wish to consider developing the sort of long-term close relationship with clients which appears to have gone out of fashion in the age of the syndicated loan. Non-executive directors can take a more critical view of company policies on acquisitions and mergers. Indeed, a more sceptical view of acquisition-driven policies and a greater emphasis on organic growth might well be beneficial. Here again, we are contemplating changes which could be made only with the active and willing co-operation of the company itself. Some companies show what can be done with acquisition-driven growth; other cases show the dangers. Judgment is needed by both directors and shareholders.
In the end, the Government cannot prevent companies becoming insolvent. Investors have to assess the quality and style of the management and decide whether the prospects and the risks offer an attractive balance. Nor, ultimately, can the Government prevent malpractice; but the law has developed and is enforced in ways which make it more difficult to get away with dishonesty, and so provides a deterrent. For example, the rate of compliance among companies in filing annual trading statements and balance sheets has risen, as a result of a Government campaign, from 40 per cent. to 80 per cent. in only a few years. This helps to ensure that investors and potential investors, creditors and others have the information which they need to make a proper judgment about the risks and prospects. We can be proud of this improvement, especially when we
866
look at the situation in many other countries where even such simple requirements as these are not laid down or enforced. But Government still intend the rate to go much higher, and are working to achieve this.
In short, this Government have worked hard at ensuring that there is a well-regulated and firmly enforced statutory framework within which companies can operate. This is an environment that gives companies the freedom to select the style and organisation of management that best suits their needs. It is up to them to take it from there. It is up to shareholders, directors and regulators to ensure that powers given by legislation are used.
I now turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He asked what survey the Minister (that is, me) was referring to. I apologise. That was the most appalling intrusion on the reputation of my noble friend. The Minister is of course my noble friend the Minister of State and not me.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, he is not the noble Lord's noble friend. He is the honourable friend of the Minister in another place.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the survey referred to was from The Director magazine of December 1990 which gave UK companies good points on a range of aspects of performance, combining a five-year weighted average of profit before tax as a percentage of shareholders' equity, an accounting rate of return with a five-year weighted average of operating profit as a percentage of turnover and a measure of ability to control operating costs together with four other ratios measuring safety and growth. On the scores used in this survey, the top two companies out of 50 European companies were both British, namely, Glaxo and Reuters, and another 25 were also British.
The noble Lord also asked about my right honourable friend the Minister's reference to "a sensibly structured board". A sensibly structured board is in general one which provides a range of skills appropriate to the business and where several non-executive directors are there to preserve competence and honest dealing.
Next we have reference to the non-executive chairman in relation to shareholders' interests. The Minister meant that a non-executive chairman was intended and has indeed the same duties as an executive chairman, but is in a special position because he can concentrate more easily on the interests of the shareholders by being less concerned with the day to day management of the company. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, pointed out, he also has a duty under Section 309 of the Companies Act 1985 to have regard to the interests of the company's employees as well as its members. That is the established law and the Government have no quarrel with it.
Then we have a "truly independent non-executive director". I would have thought the phrase was self-explanatory. The first requirement is that he should have no ties with the company or other board members which might influence his judgment. The second is that he should have an independent mind

867
and the ability to stand up for his own views. The Government's concern is to promote the idea of independence as an attractive feature in such cases. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not suggest that there is anything wrong with that concept.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may make myself clear. There is nothing wrong with that concept. The question is whether it is ever put into practice. How do the Government intend that it should be put into practice? We have had many examples of non-executive directors who are friends of the chairman. They are put on the board because they are friends of the chairman. Once they are on the board it is very difficult to get them off.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, requires certainty. The reality of legislation is to provide as close to perfection in balance as is possible. The Minister also mentioned the ambitions of chief executives and chairmen to which the noble Lord has just referred. It is a cliché in the commercial world that entrepreneurs who run businesses as personal fiefdoms can run into trouble when their businesses grow too large for detailed personal control to work effectively. At that point it is often useful for there to be other people on the board who can draw attention to the changing conditions and exert pressure on the chairman or chief executive to ensure that proper management structures are put in place.
Now we return to non-executive directors. Non-executive directors are in a better position to stand back from day-to-day management issues and question those like finance directors who have to deal with such issues. But as a specific duty of a non-executive director, directors are all equal under the law and the Government have no wish to change that, as was made clear several times in the debates on the Companies Act 1989.
The noble Lord also sought to question the Minister's reference to evidence on the results of takeovers. Evidence about the post-merger profitability of companies involved in takeovers was assessed in the 1978 Green Paper, which concluded that in roughly half the cases examined, the merger had had an unfavourable or neutral effect on profitability. It was recognised that there were problems of comparability, notably in relation to what profitability would hypothetically have been had the merger not taken place. Subsequent evidence has been considered by a number of empirical studies using different approaches.
It would take too long to give summaries of all of these, which are to be found in the DTI Blue Paper on mergers' policy, published in 1988. It is fair to say that most of them support the conclusion of the Green Paper, while the longer period covered and the use of varying methodologies give that conclusion greater authority. The Government do not draw from this the conclusion that takeovers should be made more difficult but that management should look at possible bids critically to make sure they are likely to be successful before launching them.
868
Finally, I refer to the stock market's ratings of companies which invest successfully in the future. "Successfully" is an important word here. The most familiar illustrations of the benefits of R&D investment to stock market ratings are the oil and pharmaceutical industries, both of which generally write-off their exploration and R&D costs against income, while enjoying high fee ratios. Glaxo and Wellcome shares have all typically traded well above the market average. The point is that, if they can do it, so can others. But it does not happen entirely by accident: keeping in touch with market specialists in the industrial sector, and underlining the competitive benefits of long-term development, are legitimate activities which far too many companies fail to do effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew your Lordships' attention to the statement by Sir John Harvey-Jones in the Grand Metropolitan report as the leader of the non-executive directors. It states that the UK is moving towards a two-tier board. We believe that it is a good practice to encourage non-executive directors to have a supervisory role, but to make a formal legal distinction would confuse responsibilities. In Dutch companies the supervisory board represents interests such as employees or banks. In the United Kingdom the board is responsible to the company while taking account of other interests as necessary.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have certain knowledge of the supervisory board, as I said. There were no banks or employees represented on it. There were outside directors drawn from a variety of companies which in that case included Shell and Unilever. I was invited to join as a UK industrialist.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I did not say what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has accused me of saying. I did not say that the banks or the employees were on the board. I said that the supervisory board represented outside interests of which those were just two. There is a multitude of other outside interests and shareholders. All I am saying is that it is a different approach in this country to the one suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, drew attention to an earlier relationship between the two of us a decade ago. I can assure noble Lords that my knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and of his great experience in the City, convinced me that short-termism was not alive and well and I shall be eternally grateful to him. He also drew attention to recent scandals that could have been avoided with independent directors. I agree with him that their appointment would probably have helped in many cases. However, regardless of directors—independent or otherwise —and auditors and others, scandals will still occur for as long as activity of a financial nature exists within a market.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, also referred to the selection of non-executive independent directors. I agree that shareholders should take more active interest in pressing for the appointment of independent active non-executive directors.

869
Perhaps I may close on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested there was something odd about the statement by the Minister for Corporate Affairs. The reality is that this statement has provided a healthy extension of the discussion and the debate that takes place. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, drew from several examples through that statement, I felt that it had contributed to our seeing corporate finance a little more clearly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I recognise there is advantage in the Department of Trade and Industry seeing the future a little more clearly than has previously been the case. Will the noble Lord answer a specific question? Does he think that in their annual reports companies are right to show directors as being executive and non-executive? Does he support the suggestion of the Institute of Directors that executive and non-executive directors should be specified when companies come to the market and to the Stock Exchange?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I have abandoned the commercial world I am not in a position to answer that question with the accuracy that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would desire. However, I shall ensure that a missive is dispatched to him in answer to his question.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally sits down, perhaps I may ask him from these rather confused heights whether in the interests of clarity he might seek to orchestrate, whether with the Bank of England, the CBI or others, the preparation of certain guidelines for directors. Many directors are now fairly confused as to their role and responsibilities.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can certainly draw the remarks of my noble friend to the attention of the Bank of England. He would be slightly surprised if I were to issue a directive from Victoria Street to that effect.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  DEFENDANTS ON BAIL: REOFFENDING RATE
  DEFENDANTS ON BAIL: REOFFENDING RATE
  MR. MICHAEL THYNNE
  MR. MICHAEL THYNNE
  ACT OF SETTLEMENT 1700
  ACT OF SETTLEMENT 1700
  Mr. PHILIP OLDFIELD: SENTENCING REVIEW
  Mr. PHILIP OLDFIELD: SENTENCING REVIEW
  USSR: IMF AND WORLD BANK
  USSR: IMF AND WORLD BANK
  BALTIC STATES: UK SUPPORT
  BALTIC STATES: UK SUPPORT
  GULF WAR: COSTS
  GULF WAR: COSTS
  MOLDAVIA: USSR MILITARY CONSCRIPTION
  MOLDAVIA: USSR MILITARY CONSCRIPTION
  BLACK COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: OPERATIONS
  BLACK COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: OPERATIONS